Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06534/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06534-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNETT MONTOYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06534-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 54

This order resolves defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative for a more definite statement 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Dkt. No. 54. 

DISCUSSION

The parties’ familiarity with the facts and record are assumed. The Court orders as 

follows:

1. Scope of Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action

The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action, and noted that “[t]his 

leaves only plaintiffs’ first claim, for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, on the basis that 

defendants ‘deprived plaintiffs of the[ir] constitutional rights’ under the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution ‘in that the defendants . . . jointly and severally deprived plaintiffs 

of their property without due process of law and failed to provide equal protection of the law.’” 

Dkt. No. 49 at 1.

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”) omits the dismissed claims but plaintiffs’ 

allegations for their remaining first claim are now inexplicably vague, asserting only that 

defendants “have deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional rights.” Dkt. No. 53 ¶ 56. Defendants 

Case 3:17-cv-06534-JD Document 60 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

understandably complain that plaintiffs’ SAC now “does not identify any part of the Constitution.” 

Dkt. No. 54 at 5.

On the basis of the Court’s prior order as well as plaintiffs’ representation that the SAC 

“adopts” the assertions made in the first amended complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 56 at 2, the Court 

construes plaintiffs’ first cause of action in the SAC as alleging the same legal violation described 

in plaintiffs’ first cause of action in the FAC, i.e., a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 

based on plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. To the extent 

plaintiffs are now trying to invoke their First Amendment rights as an additional basis for the 

claim, Dkt. No. 56 at 2, that is a change that is neither evident from the SAC nor permitted by the 

Court. See Dkt. No. 49 at 5 (“Plaintiffs may not add any new claims or defendants without 

express leave of Court.”). Consequently, plaintiffs’ first claim in the SAC is limited to the 

confines of that claim as alleged in the FAC.

2. Monell Claim Against City and County of San Francisco 

The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the City and County of San Francisco 

because plaintiffs’ allegations did not sufficiently allege an official policy, practice or custom

under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Dkt. No. 49 at 4-5. 

Plaintiffs’ allegations are virtually unchanged, and they remain conclusory and deficient. 

See, e.g., Dkt. No. 53 ¶ 13 (“The club’s license was and is at risk because of Lazar’s racist crusade 

and the de facto sanctioning and endorsement of those efforts by two SFPD Chiefs of Police, by 

other leadership of the SFPD, and by the mayor of San Francisco.”). Plaintiffs’ claims against the 

City and County of San Francisco are consequently dismissed with prejudice. 

3. Statute of Limitations

The prior order observed that the parties appeared to “agree that ‘acts falling outside of the 

[two-year] limitations period are time barred,’” and plaintiffs were therefore directed to focus, in 

any amendment of the complaint, on acts by defendants that occurred during the limitations 

period, i.e., after November 9, 2015. Dkt. No. 49 at 3-5 (quoting RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of 

Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Case 3:17-cv-06534-JD Document 60 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs have not followed the Court’s directive in their allegations in the SAC. They do

assert, however, in their brief opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss, that numerous acts by the 

defendants took place “through several months of 2019,” “continued long after the initial filing 

date (November 9, 2017),” and “continued during the period.” Dkt. No. 56 at 3-4.

On this record, the Court dismisses the SAC, but plaintiffs will have an additional 

opportunity to amend by April 3, 2020. If this deadline is not feasible in light of the public health 

situation, the parties may agree on a new date by joint stipulation filed with the Court. If the 

parties cannot agree, plaintiffs may ask the Court to extend the deadline.

Any further amended complaint must clearly identify and expressly allege the acts by 

defendants that occurred during the limitations period, i.e., after November 9, 2015. The City and 

County of San Francisco must be removed as a defendant. The legal basis for the first claim for 

relief should be made consistent with the allegations in the FAC. To the extent plaintiffs wish to 

expand those bases, they must file a properly noticed motion seeking the Court’s leave. 

Otherwise, the default rule remains that new claims or defendants may not be added without 

express leave of Court. Plaintiffs are advised that this is likely to be their final opportunity to 

amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06534-JD Document 60 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 3