Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD RANDOLPH, SR.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07476 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND

QUASHING IMPROPER SERVICE ON

DEFENDANT FRAYER

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the state law claims against them and to dismiss all

claims against defendant Frayer based on improper service of process. Hearing on the motion is

currently scheduled for April 27, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that

defendants’ motions are appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the

April 27, 2007 hearing. For the following reasons and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES

defendants’ motions to dismiss, but quashes the improper service of process against defendant Frayer,

without prejudice to proper re-service.

The Case Management Conference scheduled for April 27, 2007 remains on calendar.

BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, plaintiff was “arrested illegally” on October 25, 2005, was later

acquitted, and was in custody in San Mateo County Jail from October 25, 2005 to June 20, 2006.

Complaint, ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that during the arrest, defendant Frayer tripped plaintiff while

snatching plaintiff’s cuffed hands, propelling plaintiff to the ground and causing injuries to plaintiff’s

head, face, lip, teeth, back, neck, elbows and left shoulder. Complaint, ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that he

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 9
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

1

 Attached to the declaration of Minette Warren supporting their motion to dismiss for failure

to present a claim, defendants provided copies of plaintiff’s July 12, 2006 claim; of the City of East Palo

Alto’s July 13, 2006 letter stating that the claim was late; and of plaintiff’s August 10, 2006 request for

permission to file a late claim. Although Ms. Warren’s declaration stated that “plaintiff’s request to

file a late claim was denied by the City Counsel on November 8, 2006,” the December 7, 2006 letter

denying the claims was not supplied to the Court with the declaration. Rather, it was supplied by

plaintiff’s counsel in his opposition to defendants’ motion. 

2

was taken by ambulance to San Mateo General Hospital, where he was treated for his injuries. Id.

While in custody, plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with three herniated discs in his upper neck

and back area. Id. Plaintiff alleges that as of December 6, 2006, the date he filed his complaint, he was

still under the care of a physician for the injuries he sustained on October 25, 2005. See id. Plaintiff

further alleges that his car was impounded and sold, and that he lost all of his personal belongings that

were in the car at the time it was impounded. Id.

On July 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a claim with the City of East Palo Alto seeking $6,016,100.00

in damages. Declaration of Minette Warren, Ex. A. The City of East Palo Alto returned the claim on

July 13, 2006, stating that plaintiff did not file the claim within the time allowed by law. See id., Ex.

B. Plaintiff filed a request for permission to file a late claim to the City Council of East Palo Alto on

August 10, 2006. See id., Ex. C. In the request, plaintiff stated that he sought permission to file such

a claim despite his belief that his initial claim was timely filed. See id. The City Council sent plaintiff

a letter on December 7, 2006, stating: “Notice is hereby given that the claim for damages you presented

to the City of East Palo Alto on July 12, 2006, was rejected by the City Council on November 8, 2006.”

Opposition to 12(b)(6), Ex. E. The letter also informed plaintiff that “[s]ubject to certain exceptions,

you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail

to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.” Id. 1

 Plaintiff filed his

complaint in this Court on December 6, 2006, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and1983; false

arrest and imprisonment; battery; violation of California Civil Code § 51.7; intentional and negligent

infliction of emotional distress; general negligence; and negligent hiring, training and supervision.

Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff’s state law causes of action for failure to comply with

the California Tort Claims Act’s presentment requirements; to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of false arrest

and imprisonment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and to dismiss plaintiff’s

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 9
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

3

claims as they pertain to Officer Frayer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for

insufficiency of service of process.

LEGAL STANDARD

1. Rule 12(b)(6) – Failure to state a claim

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question presented by a motion to dismiss

is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer

evidence in support of the claim. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff’s allegations are true and

must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d

556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is

remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. See

United States v. City of Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981).

If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The

Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by

the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

2. Rule 12(b)(5) – Insufficient service of process

Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move for

dismissal resulting from insufficiency of service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). When a

defendant challenges service, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the validity of service as

governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th. Cir.

2004). 

Rule 4 provides four alternatives for service of individuals. Service is effective pursuant to (1)

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 9
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

4

the law of the state where the district court is located or of the state where service is effected, see Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual

personally, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2); (3) by leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house

or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, see id.;

or (4) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment

or by law to receive service of process, see id. 

If the plaintiff is unable to satisfy its burden of demonstrating effective service, the Court has

discretion to either dismiss or retain the action. If the Court decides not to dismiss, it quashes the

ineffective service that has been made on the defendant and provides the plaintiff the opportunity to

serve the defendant again effectively. See Stevens v. Security Pacific Nat’l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389

(9th Cir. 1976).

DISCUSSION

1. Motions to dismiss

Defendants assert two grounds for dismissing several of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). First, defendants assert that plaintiff failed to comply with the

presentment requirements prescribed by the California Tort Claims Act with regard to all state law

causes of action. Second, defendants assert that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim of false arrest

and imprisonment upon which relief can be granted.

A. Motion to dismiss for failure to meet presentment requirements

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s state law causes of action are barred by his failure to comply

with the presentment requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. In particular, defendants argue

that plaintiff failed to present his claims to the City of Palo Alto within the six month time-frame

mandated by section 911.2 of the California Government Code. For the following reasons, the Court

will deny the motion.

The California Tort Claims Act provides, in pertinent part, that “no suit for money or damages

may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action [against a public entity or employee] until

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 4 of 9
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

5

a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board,

or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . .” Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4.

California Government Code § 911.2 defines the timeliness requirements for presenting such

claims to a public entity under the California Tort Claims Act. It states:

A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal

property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with

Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim

relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2

(commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of

action.

Id. § 911.2. If a claim is presented later than the deadlines provided by section 911.2, section 911.3

provides that the public entity “may, at any time within 45 days after the claim is presented, give written

notice to the person presenting the claim that the claim was not filed timely and that it is being returned

without further action.” See id. § 911.3. 

Section 911.4 provides a way around the timeliness requirements of section 911.2. It states, in

pertinent part: “When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months

after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be

made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.” Id. § 911.4. Section 911.6 provides that the

public entity “shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.” Id. §

911.6. If the public entity denies leave to present the claim, it is required to give written notice to the

claimant, and the notice “shall include a warning in substantially the following form”: 

WARNING: If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the

appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code

Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6.

Such petition mst be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your

application for leave to present a late claim was denied. 

Id. § 911.8.

Once a claim is timely presented, or presented with leave to present a late claim, the public entity

then considers and acts on the claim. See id. §§ 912.4, 912.6. If a claim is rejected, the public entity

must provide written notice. See id. § 913. “Such notice may be in substantially the following form:”

Notice is hereby given that the claim which you presented to the (insert title of board or

officer) on (indicate date) was (indicate whether rejected, allowed, allowed in the amount

of $_____ _____ and rejected as to the balance, rejected by operation of law, or other

appropriate language, whichever is applicable) on (indicate date of action or rejection

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

by operation of law).

Id. Section 913 also requires that a rejection notice state: 

Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was

personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See

Government Code Section 945.6. 

WARNING

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter.

If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Id.

Plaintiff in this case presented his claim to the City of East Palo Alto on July 12, 2006.

Defendants rejected his claim on July 13, 2006, “because it was not presented within six months after

the event or occurrence as required by law. . . . Because the claim was not presented within the time

allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim.” Warren Declaration, Ex. B. The notice of rejection

also advised plaintiff that: “Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the City of East

Palo Alto, City Council for leave to present a late claim.” Id. 

Plaintiff sought leave from the City Council to present a late claim on August 10, 2006. As

discussed, on December 7, 2006, the City Council sent plaintiff a letter stating: “Notice is hereby given

that the claim for damages you presented to the City of East Palo Alto on July 12, 2006, was rejected

by the City Council on November 8, 2006.” Oppo., Ex. E. The letter also informed plaintiff that

“[s]ubject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally

delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section

945.6.” Id. 

The December 7, 2006 letter from the City Council thus used the statutory language mandated

by section 913. As discussed, section 913 provides the language to be used in a notice rejecting a claim

on its merits; section 911.8 provides the language to be used in a notice rejecting an application for leave

to file a late claim. Furthermore, the December 7, 2006 letter stated that “the claim for damages you

presented . . . was rejected by the City Council.” Oppo., Ex. E. It does not mention acceptance or

rejection of plaintiff’s “application” for leave to file a late claim. It thus appears, on the face of the

December 7, 2006 letter, that the City Council addressed the merits of plaintiff’s claim, rather than

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 6 of 9
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

For this reason, defendants’ failure to include the letter with their moving papers was potentially

misleading.

3

The tort of false imprisonment consists of the “nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a

person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short.” Fermino v. Fedco,

Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 701, 715 (Cal. 1994). Pursuant to California Penal Code § 847(b)(1), a police officer

shall not be held civilly liable for false arrest if he or she was acting within the scope of his or her

authority, and if the arrest was lawful, or if the police officer had reasonable cause to believe the arrest

was lawful at the time of the arrest. Reasonable cause to arrest exists when the facts known to the

arresting officer would lead a reasonable person to have a strong suspicion of the arrestee’s guilt.

People v. Mower, 28 Cal. 4th 457, 473 (Cal. 2002). 

7

rejecting it as untimely.2

 The City Council therefore implicitly granted plaintiff’s application for leave

to file a late claim. Consequently, plaintiff’s failure to comply with the requirements of section 911.2

is a moot issue.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims for

failure to meet the California Tort Claims Act’s presentment requirements.

B. Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment cause of action

In their reply, defendants argue that plaintiff’s claim of false arrest and imprisonment must be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the arresting officers had

probable cause to arrest plaintiff. See Reply in Support of 12(b)(6) Motion at 4. Defendants did not

raise this argument in their motion. 

As an initial matter, the Court is disinclined to consider arguments raised for the first time in a

reply brief. See Competitive Technologies, Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 333 F. Supp. 2d 858, 863 (N.D. Cal.

2004); see also United States v. Boggi, 74 F.3d 470, 478 (3d Cir.1996) (noting that considering

arguments raised for first time in reply brief deprives opposing party of adequate opportunity to

respond). 

Furthermore, whether the defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff is a factual dispute,

which cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss.3 See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant officers Frayer and Kalb arrested plaintiff without “probable cause.” See

Complaint, ¶ 33. This allegation is sufficient to state a claim, at this point.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

of false arrest and imprisonment.

2. Motion re insufficient service of process

Defendants seek to dismiss all claims against defendant Officer Frayer for insufficient service

of process, since at the time all of the defendants were served via the secretary at the East Palo Alto

Police Department headquarters, Officer Frayer no longer worked there.

The United States Marshals Service served plaintiff’s complaint on defendants on February 13,

2007. See Docket No. 7. Process was received by secretary Irma Martinez at the City of East Palo Alto

Police headquarters on February 13, 2007. See id. Martinez signed the Process Receipt and Return

forms for the City of East Palo Alto, the City Attorney for the City of East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto

Police Department, Officer Stephen Kalb, and Officer Brian Scott Frayer. See id. Defendants argue that

process was insufficiently served on Frayer because his employment with the City of East Palo Alto

ceased on September 12, 2006. See Rule 12(b)(5) Motion, Martin Decl., ¶ 2. 

Both the Federal and California Rules of Civil Procedure provide for service at Frayer’s place

of business. See Fed. R. Civ. P. § 4(e)(2); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.20(b). However, because Frayer no

longer worked where process was served, service was not effectuated properly. See Fed. R. Civ. P. §

4(e)(2); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.20(b). That Martinez accepted the service of process for Frayer does

not indicate that service was proper. 

However, the Court does not dismiss the claims against defendant Frayer. The Ninth Circuit has

held that:

[F]ailure to comply with [the] personal service requirement does not require dismissal

of the complaint if (a) the party that had to be served personally received actual notice,

(b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice from the defect in service, (c) there is a

justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly, and (d) the plaintiff would be severely

prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed. 

Borzeka v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 444, 447 (9th Cir. 1984). Defendant Frayer is represented by the same

attorneys who are representing the other defendants in this case, and Frayer makes no argument that he

has been prejudiced by the defect in service. Further, plaintiff presents a justifiable excuse for failure

to properly serve Frayer. Plaintiff did not know that Frayer was no longer employed as an East Palo

Alto Police Officer, and the City of East Palo Alto, through Martinez, accepted plaintiff’s service of

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Frayer. Plaintiff thus had no indication that service was not proper until this motion was filed. Finally,

plaintiff would be substantially prejudiced if his complaint against defendant Frayer was dismissed,

because the Tort Claims Act’s statute of limitations for filing a complaint might have expired. See Cal.

Gov. Code § 945.6.

Therefore, the Court DENIES defendant Frayer’s 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for insufficient

service, QUASHES the ineffective service, and ORDERS plaintiff to effectuate proper service on

defendant Frayer.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

and DENIES defendant Frayer’s 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, instead quashing the insufficient service

of process and ORDERING plaintiff to effectuate proper service on defendant Frayer pursuant to Rule

5(b)(1). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 46 Filed 04/26/07 Page 9 of 9