Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-01071/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-01071-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

FLORIDALMA ALVAREZ, 

YOURI BEZDENEJNYKH,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CV 10-1071 NJV

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER

FOR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS (Docket No. 22)

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 22) and this motion is scheduled

to be heard on June 22, 2010. Plaintiffs have filed their opposition and Defendants have filed their

reply. (Doc. Nos. 30 & 36)

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, courts may consider only “the complaint, materials

incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial

notice.” Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). The

Court orders the following supplemental briefing by June 21, 2010:

1) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing because neither currently owns the property

that is the subject of this action and the remedies sought can only be pursued by the property owner. 

Defendants do not cite any legal authority for their argument besides one case for the general legal

standard. Defendants are ordered to supplement its briefing to address whether a) a plaintiff’s

present ownership of real property is required for standing; b) ownership of real property at the time

suit was filed is sufficient to establish standing; c) ownership of real property at the time of the

alleged injury is sufficient to establish standing; and d) constitutional challenges to an ordinance

require ownership of real property. 

Case 1:10-cv-01071-NJV Document 38 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2) Defendants contend that Defendant Richard Coel is immune from liability under

California Government Code § 820.9 and state in their motion that Defendant Coel is the “appointed

Community Development Department Director.” Defs.’ Mot. at 10. This conclusory statement is

insufficient. Defendants must establish that Defendant Coel is a member of a locally appointed

board or commission or a member of a locally appointed or elected advisory body for § 820.9

immunity. Defendants are ordered to supplement its briefing with a) support that Defendant Coel

was appointed Director of the Community Development Department, of which the Court may take

judicial notice; and b) argument regarding whether the Community Development Department is a

board, commission, or advisory body under § 820.9. 

 Defendants’ supplemental briefing is limited to ten (10) pages and must be filed by June 21,

2010. By June 28, 2010, Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, respond to Defendants’

supplemental briefing. Plaintiffs’ responsive briefing is limited to five (5) pages.

Dated: June 15, 2010 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-01071-NJV Document 38 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2