Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00898/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00898-0/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

1 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL LOWRY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

BOARD, et al.,

Defendant.

Defendants Metropolitan Transit System (erroneously sued as Metropolitan Transit

System Board) (“MTS”) and Heritage Security Services (erroneously sued as Heritage

Security) (“Heritage”) have separately moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

[Docs. 27, 28]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

MTS’s motion [Doc. 27] and DENIES Heritage’s motion [Doc. 28].

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights and several state-law causes of

action based on an alleged altercation he had with security officers at the Old Town Trolly

Station in San Diego. The Court more thoroughly discussed the facts of this case in an order

dated March 8, 2010 [Doc. 23]. That order dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims with leave

to amend. Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court resolves the issues

raised in the parties’ motions as set forth below.

Case 3:09-cv-00898-BTM-WVG Document 37 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiff also mentions the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment, but

alleges no facts supporting a claim under either.

2 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the plaintiff is required only to set forth

a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and

“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). When reviewing a motion to

dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v.

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). But only factual allegations must be

accepted as true—not legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the

factual allegations ”must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

III. DISCUSSION

1. Constitutional Claims

As discussed in the Court’s March 8, 2010 order, Plaintiff appears to allege a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 But Defendants MTS and Heritage can only be liable under § 1983

if the violation was the result of either a policy or a failure to train their employees. See Bd.

of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489

U.S. 378, 388 (1989). 

Plaintiff does make allegations related to policies and training, and when construed

liberally, he alleges a failure to train. For example, he claims that MTS is “responsible for

hiring and contracting with Heritage Security so they have to take most of the blame on

training of your security officers which they’ve violated civil and constitutional rights, . . . there

Case 3:09-cv-00898-BTM-WVG Document 37 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 5
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 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

procedures . . . says nothing as far as the training of it’s security goes they say nothing on

how to handle certain situation with disable persons or regular people . . . .” It appears

Plaintiff alleges that MTS’s and Heritage’s failure to train their security officers “on how to

handle certain situation with disable persons or regular people” led to his injuries. Although

his allegation is vague, Defendants can seek clarity through interrogatories or other discovery

mechanisms.

The Court therefore DENIES MTS’s and Heritage’s motions to dismiss the

constitutional claims against them.

Plaintiff also alleges a “de facto government civil conspiracy to violate civil rights.”

This claim is unintelligible, devoid of facts, and the Court dismisses it.

The § 1983 claims against MTS, Heritage, and Torrence Joseph, who has not yet

been served, are still viable. The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the related

state-law claims on this basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

2. State-Law Claims Against MTS

Plaintiff again fails to show compliance with the California Government Claims Act

(“CGCA”). Under the CGCA, a Plaintiff must first present a written claim to a public entity

and wait for the board to act upon it before bringing a claim for money or damages against

that public entity. Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4. A plaintiff’s failure to plead compliance with this

requirement of the CGCA is cause for dismissal. See Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d 621,627 (9th

Cir. 1988). Plaintiff already had a chance to cure this deficiency and he did not. All of

Plaintiff’s state-law claims against MTS are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to allege

compliance with the CGCA. Chappel, 232 F.3d at 725–26.

3. State-Law Claims Against Heritage

The First Amended Complaint alleges state claims for assault and battery, false

imprisonment, and false arrest.

Case 3:09-cv-00898-BTM-WVG Document 37 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 5
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 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

A. Assault and Battery

The Court has already established that Plaintiff has pled a claim for assault. But

Heritage now argues that it is not liable because Plaintiff has not alleged that it employs

Torrence Joseph, the man who allegedly assaulted Plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that “Heritage Security guards caused more damage” and references

a rib injury and internal bleeding. He also generally alleges that Defendant Joseph

committed assault and battery against him. Joseph is allegedly “a private security officer[]

and/or de facto government agent working for the MTS.” (First Amended Complaint,

5:24–26.) Construing liberally the allegation that Joseph is a private security officer, the

Court infers that he is an employee of Heritage, and further finds that Plaintiff adequately

alleged claims for assault and battery. Heritage, therefore, may be liable for the alleged torts

of its employees through the doctrine of respondeat superior. Baptist v. Robinson, 143 Cal.

App. 4th 151, 160 (2006). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Heritage’s Motion to Dismiss the

assault and battery claim.

B. False Imprisonment

To establish a civil claim for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must allege “(1) the

nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, (2) without lawful privilege, and (3) for

an appreciable period of time, however brief.” Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital, 80 Cal. App.

4th 485, 496 (2000).

Construed liberally, Plaintiff has stated a claim for false imprisonment. He asserts that

Joseph and others, who the Court infers are Heritage employees, arrested him without

justification. The Court can reasonably infer that Plaintiff did not consent to the confinement

and that it was for an appreciable period of time, however brief.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Heritage’s Motion to Dismiss the false imprisonment

claim.

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-00898-BTM-WVG Document 37 Filed 06/10/10 Page 4 of 5
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 09cv898 BTM (WVG)

C. False Arrest

Plaintiff appears to allege a claim for false arrest. But false arrest and false

imprisonment are not separate torts. Rather, false arrest is simply one form of false

imprisonment. Cummings v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 202 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1422 (1988). The

Court treats these allegations as one claim.

4. Motion for More Definite Statement

MTS and Heritage have also moved for a more definite statement. The Court DENIES

those motions, as Plaintiff’s surviving state-law claims are not “so vague or ambiguous that

[they] cannot prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The factual allegations supporting

his state-law claims are reasonably specific and detailed, and give MTS and Heritage

sufficient notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part MTS’s

motion to dismiss [Doc. 27]. The § 1983 claim remains, but all the state-law claims against

MTS are DISMISSED. The Court DENIES Heritage’s motion to dismiss in its entirety [Doc.

28]. MTS’s and Heritage’s motions for a more definite statement are also DENIED.

The Court will not entertain any more amendments to these claims at this time. The

case will proceed. MTS and Heritage must file their answers within ten days of the filing of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00898-BTM-WVG Document 37 Filed 06/10/10 Page 5 of 5