Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00488/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLUB GRAVITY, INC. dba PLANET )

ROCK; RICHARD TRIHN; and ) 2:07-cv-488-GEB-EFB

AMPHOUVANHA CHANTHALANGSY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

MOHAMMED JACK MOGHADDAM; GARY )

PRICE; JOHN OSBOURN; CITY OF )

MARYSVILLE; CITY OF MARYSVILLE )

POLICE DEPARTMENT; GRET GOMMER; )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Mohammed Jack Moghaddam (“Moghaddam”) moves for

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”) under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs lack

standing to assert claims based on the rights of third parties.1

(Moghaddam’s Mot. at 3-4.) Defendants City of Marysville, Marysville

Police Department, John Osbourn, and Gary Price (collectively,

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 7
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

“Marysville Defendants”) also move for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FAC

under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiffs’ action is barred by res

judicata and Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims based on their

patrons’ rights. (Marysville Defs.’ Mot. at 5:16-19.) Plaintiffs

oppose both motions. Defendant Greg Gomer filed a statement of nonopposition to both motions.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

 Plaintiffs and Moghaddam entered into a purchase agreement

for Moghaddam’s property, following which Plaintiffs began using the

property as a bar and nightclub called Planet Rock. (FAC ¶ 11.) 

Plaintiffs state they played hip-hop and rap music, and “generally

cater[ed] to the African American Community as [its] client base.” 

(Id.) On July 1, 2006, Plaintiffs held an event which required

Plaintiffs to hire two Marysville police department officers for added

security. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs allege that night Defendant Osborne

organized a sting operation of Plaintiffs’ nightclub because of his

racial animus towards African Americans. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege

that while the sting was taking place, Plaintiffs were not able to

permit patrons into the club, which caused the line outside to triple

in size. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this crowd,

Defendant Marysville Police Department called additional law

enforcement officers “to run the African American crowd out of town.” 

(Id.) 

Plaintiffs allege they were then notified that their use

permit was suspended pending a revocation hearing to be held at the

City Planning Commission. (Id. ¶ 17.) At the revocation hearing,

Plaintiffs’ use permit was revoked. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege

their use permit was revoked as a result of Defendants’ racial animus

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 7
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

toward African Americans. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs filed an appeal of

this revocation with the Marysville City Counsel. (Id. ¶ 19.) The

City Counsel voted to uphold the revocation of Plaintiffs’ use permit. 

(Id.) 

Prior to the City Council’s hearing, Plaintiffs allege

Moghaddam forcibly entered Planet Rock and that he convinced the

Marysville Police Department he had Plaintiffs’ permission to change

the locks at Planet Rock and that the Marysville Police Department did

nothing to verify this assertion. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) Plaintiffs assert

they then attempted to enter Planet Rock while Moghaddam was there and

that Moghaddam called the Marysville Police Department. (Id. ¶ 22.) 

Plaintiffs allege Moghaddam told John Osbourn, the police officer who

responded to the call, that Moghaddam was entitled to possession of

the property because Plaintiffs had defaulted on their payments. 

(Id.) Plaintiffs further allege Osbourn informed Plaintiffs he had

“found a default and was awarding possession of the premises to

[Moghaddam] and threatened the Plaintiffs with arrest if they did not

leave.” (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that “[i]mmediately thereafter,

Defendant Moghaddam began dismantling, removing and destroying the

club so that Plaintiffs would be unable to resume business operations

after regaining possession.” (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that when they

contacted the police regarding the destruction of the club, the police

refused to act because it was a civil matter. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiffs

further allege that “[a]ll of Defendants[’] actions described above

were taken to accomplish one goal, namely to stop the continued

presence of African Americans in Marysville.” (Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiffs

allege these actions constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983,

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 7
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

1985, 1986, constitutional due process rights, and equal protection

rights. (Pls.’ Compl. ¶¶ 31-60.) 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) if a pleading

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by either (1)

failing to present a cognizable legal theory, or (2) failing to plead

sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v.

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984). 

When deciding the motion, the court must accept as true all material

allegations and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Cahill v.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party is given the benefit of every reasonable inference that

can be drawn from its allegations. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n v.

Shermahorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). 

II. Motion to Dismiss Analysis

A. Res Judicata

Marysville Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FAC,

arguing that the City Council upheld the revocation of Plaintiffs’ use

permit and that if “a party wishes to have a superior court review

such a decision, that party has ninety days from the date the decision

becomes final within which to file a petition for review” and

“Plaintiffs failed to file a petition for mandamus.” (Marysville

Defs.’ Mot. at 7:12-19.) Plaintiffs do not dispute they did not file

an appeal of the City Council’s decision and that the deadline for

appeal has passed; however, Plaintiffs rejoin that “the City Council’s

jurisdiction in this case [was] limited to determine whether

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 7
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

[P]laintiffs’ conditional use permit should be revoked or not. The

City Council clearly has no jurisdiction to determine claims of police

misconduct directly. Those issues were not before the council.” 

(Pls.’ Opp’n to Marysville Defs.’ Mot. at 4:19-22.) 

Marysville Defendants have not shown Plaintiffs’ claims are

barred by res judicata. Therefore, this portion of Marysville

Defendants’ motion is denied.

B. Standing

Marysville Defendants and Moghaddam (collectively, “Moving

Defendants”) also seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FAC, arguing “[a]ll

[P]laintiffs’ claims . . . are premised on the proposition that

[Plaintiffs] are somehow entitled to assert claims based on the rights

of their African American customers” and Plaintiffs lack standing to

assert those claims. (Marysville Defs.’ Mot. at 8:20-22; Moghaddam’s

Mot. at 4:1-2.) Plaintiffs rejoin their claims are not based on the

rights of their customers, but rather assert that “[P]laintiffs were

punished for exercising [the] constitutionally protected right[s] . .

. to engage in the business of their own choosing” and “to associate

with African Americans.” (Pls.’ Opp’n to Marysville Defs.’ Mot. at

9:21-24.) Marysville Defendants reply “[i]f [P]laintiffs intend only

to assert constitutional claims of their own, based on discrimination

against their patrons, then [Marysville Defendants] have no quarrel

with that argument.” (Marysville Defs.’ Reply at 10:4-6.) However,

Marysville Defendants argue Plaintiffs “cannot assert section 1985

claims unless they are members of the class discriminated against.” 

(Id. at 10:17-18.) Moghaddam replies that “[d]espite what

[P]laintiffs claim in their opposition, the claims in the first

amended complaint are based upon action taken by all of the defendants

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 7
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

against African-Americans in general” and he “reiterates [P]laintiffs’

lack of standing to assert these claims based on the rights of third

persons.” (Moghaddam’s Reply at 3:5-7.)

To “have standing under [§] 1985” Plaintiffs must “show they

are members of a class that the government has determined ‘requires

and warrants special federal assistance in protecting their civil

rights.’” Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir.

1994). Plaintiffs have not shown they are members of such a protected

class. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ § 1985 claim is dismissed.

Plaintiffs allege Moving Defendants “deprived [P]laintiffs

of federally protected rights, privileges and immunities,” and that

“[P]laintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer injury” as a

result. (FAC ¶¶ 32, 36; see also ¶¶ 39, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55,

57, 59; Pl.’s Opp’n to Marysville Defs.’ Mot. at 1:24.) Therefore,

Plaintiffs are “not suing on behalf of anyone else [but are]

assert[ing] [their] own right[s] [and] alleg[ing] injuries that are

personal to [them].” Maynard, 37 F.3d at 1403. Moving Defendants

have not shown Plaintiffs’ remaining claims should be dismissed. 

Accordingly, these portions of Moving Defendants’ motions are denied.

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ second claim alleging

violations of § 1985 is dismissed without prejudice. The remainder of

Moving Defendants’ motions are denied. If Plaintiffs can state facts

sufficient to assert a § 1985 claim, Plaintiffs are granted leave to

amend their FAC to address that claim, provided that the amended 

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

complaint is filed no later than ten days from the date on which this

order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/31/07 Page 7 of 7