Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06213/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06213-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

 CB Richard Ellis was erroneously sued as “C.B. Ellison.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNEALIUS LOPES,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-6213 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS

FREMONT FREEWHEELERS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of defendant CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (“CB Richard

Ellis”), for an order dismissing the above-entitled action for failure to state a claim. Having

read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.

Pro se plaintiff Cornealius Lopes filed this action on November 2, 2007, in the

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, as case No. HG07354585. On November

8, 2007, he filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), naming 30 defendants – Fremont

Freewheelers; K&K Insurance; USA Cycling; Northern California and Nevada Cycling

Association (NCNCA); Robert Parker; Lawrence Upthegrove; Lloyd Rath; Richard Brockie;

Gary Birch; Sally Wilson; Jason Sage; Tim O’Hara; Jeff Wrong; Joseph Dale Wren; CB

Richard Ellis;1

 Byron Sheppard; Larry Nolan; Steve Grusis; Larry Rosa; Linda Buffetti; Joe

Baughman; Peter Allen; FFBC Race Team; Alameda County District Attorney; Newark

Police Department; Casey Carrington; Jim Davis; Deputy D.A. Shara Mesic; Deputy D.A.

Lisa Faria; and Deputy D.A. Petagrew. 

Plaintiff alleges that CB Richard Ellis is the property manager of the Stevenson

Technology Park, an industrial park located in Newark, California. As far as the court can

Case 4:07-cv-06213-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 1 of 3
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

ascertain from the FAC, plaintiff asserts that he was jogging at the Stevenson Technology

Park on a particular day in June 2004. The same day, a group of bicyclists was involved in

a race at the industrial park, organized under the auspices of several bicycling clubs or

organizations. Plaintiff was apparently injured in a collision with one of the bicyclists. 

Plaintiff asserts that some of the bicyclists or race organizers falsely accused him of battery

and hate crimes; that the Newark Police Department conducted an inadequate

investigation; and that the Alameda County District Attorney falsely charged him with

battery and hate crimes, for which he was criminally prosecuted. It is not clear from the

FAC, but it appears from plaintiff’s opposition to the present motion that he claims he was

acquitted of the charges.

Plaintiff alleges 18 “counts” in the complaint, which include a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981, for deprivation of civil rights; claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violation of his

First, Fifth, Sixth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; claims under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1985, for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; claims under the Racketeering

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); a claim under

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; claims under “§ 241" and 

“§ 242,” which the court interprets as claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 231 and 242; and various

state law claims including negligence, premises liability, and malicious prosecution. 

On December 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a “Proof of Service,” stating that copies of the

summons and complaint had been mailed to all 30 defendants on December 3, 2007, along

with the written notice and form acknowledgment of receipt required under California Code

of Civil Procedure § 415.30. Under § 415.30, service of the summons and complaint may

be effected by mail, if the person to be served returns a signed acknowledgment of receipt. 

It is unclear whether any of the parties plaintiff attempted to serve by mail returned an

acknowledgment of receipt. 

On December 7, 2007, CB Richard Ellis removed the action, alleging federal

question jurisdiction, and asserting that it believed it was the only defendant served as of

that date. On December 13, 2007, CB Richard Ellis filed the present motion to dismiss. 

Case 4:07-cv-06213-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 2 of 3
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

 Plaintiff previously filed suit on March 16, 2006, in Alameda County Superior Court,

against CB Richard Ellis and some of the other defendants named in the present action,

alleging negligence and premises liability. On January 19, 2007, however, plaintiff dismissed

the claims against CB Richard Ellis, with prejudice. 

3

On January 10, 2008, counsel for defendants Newark Police Department, Joseph Dale

Wren, and Jim Davis filed a notice of appearance. No other defendants have appeared. 

In the present motion, CB Richard Ellis argues that the claims against it should be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because they are timebarred. CB Richard Ellis asserts that the incident that forms the basis of plaintiff’s claim

occurred on June 12, 2004, more than two years before plaintiff filed the complaint in the

present action. 

Plaintiff filed two opposition briefs on January 9, 2008. In neither one does he

respond to CB Richard Ellis’ argument that the claims asserted against it are time-barred. 

The bulk of his opposition appears to involve his claims against the Newark Police

Department, the Alameda County District Attorney, and the bicyclists – all of which are

irrelevant to the claims asserted against CB Richard Ellis. 

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, a plaintiff suing for personal

injuries, including claims of constitutional violations, has two years from the date of injury to

file suit. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 335.1; Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir.

2004). Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that the incidents that form the basis of its claims against

CB Richard Ellis occurred in June 2004. He filed the complaint in the present action on

November 2, 2007, almost a year and a half past the limitations period.2 Accordingly, the

claims asserted against CB Richard Ellis are time-barred and must be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2008 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-06213-PJH Document 21 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3