Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Nevada City
Defendant
Susan Colbert
Plaintiff
Bob Micander
Defendant
Paul Rohde
Defendant
Lou Trovato
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN COLBERT,

2:06-CV-1122-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF NEVADA CITY, a

municipality, LOU TROVATO, in

his capacity as Chief of

Police for the CITY OF NEVADA

CITY, BOB MICANDER,

individually and in his

capacity as a police officer

for the CITY OF NEVADA CITY,

PAUL ROHDE, individually and

in his capacity as a police

officer for the CITY OF NEVADA

CITY and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Susan Colbert seeks

damages from Defendants as a result of the circumstances

surrounding her arrest by law enforcement personnel on May 19,

2005. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 8
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 Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 1

state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Plaintiff asserts various federal constitutional claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state constitutional claims under the

California Constitution. Plaintiff also advances the following

state tort claims: assault and battery (“fourth cause of

action”), negligence, negligent selection, training, retention,

supervision, investigation, and discipline, and a theory of

respondeat superior (collectively “fifth through seventh causes

of action”).1

Defendants now move to dismiss the fifth through seventh

causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is

denied.2

BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2005, Plaintiff arrived home to discover her

house on fire. Plaintiff called 9-1-1, and emergency personnel

responded to the scene. At some point, Plaintiff expressed

frustration with the speed of the response. According to

Plaintiff, Defendant Rohde, a police officer, approached

Plaintiff and told her to “shut up,” precipitating a verbal

altercation between Plaintiff and Defendant Rohde. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 8
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

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Rhode and Defendant Micander then

arrested her and physically handled her in an “aggressive”

manner. Plaintiff asserts that she suffered physical injury and

emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

 On November 18, 2005, Plaintiff submitted a claim for

damages (“Claim”) with the City of Nevada City. On November 23,

2005, the City rejected Plaintiff’s Claim via letter. Plaintiff

commenced the present action on May 23, 2006.

In seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s fifth through seventh

causes of action, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to

allege the fifth through seventh causes of action in the Claim

precludes her from raising them in the present litigation. 

Defendants argue that, because the fifth through seventh causes

of action diverge substantially from the facts asserted in the

Claim, Defendants received insufficient notice of these claims

and therefore Plaintiff should be barred from asserting them in

the present civil lawsuit. In opposition, Plaintiff counters

that the fifth through seventh causes of action are closely

related to the facts as presented in the Claim. Plaintiff

therefore contends that Defendants had adequate constructive

notice of these claims, and alleges that she should not be barred

from asserting said causes of action in her Complaint.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 8
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

STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under

Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted

as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,

337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). A complaint will not be dismissed for

failure to state a claim “‘unless it appears beyond doubt that

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [his or] her

claim that would entitle [him or] her to relief.’” Yamaguchi v.

Dep’t of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Lewis v. Tel. Employees Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537, 1545

(9th Cir. 1996)).

If the court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must

then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The Court should

"freely give[]" leave to amend when there is no "undue delay, bad

faith[,] dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of . . . the amendment,

[or] futility of the amendment. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a);

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, leave to

amend is only denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of

the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow

Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 8
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

ANALYSIS

California Government Code Section 945.4 requires a

plaintiff to present a claim before bringing a tort action

against a public entity. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 945.4, 910, 905;

Dixon v. City of Livermore, 127 Cal. App. 4th 32, 40 (2005). The

purpose of this requirement is to provide the public entity

sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate

claims and settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of

litigation. City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447,

455 (1974). A plaintiff may not bring a tort action against a

public entity until the claim has been rejected. Cal. Gov’t Code

§ 945.4. 

A tort claim against a public entity must describe the

“circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise

to the claim asserted” and provide a “general description of the

[injury].” Cal. Gov’t Code § 910. If the claim is rejected and

the plaintiff ultimately files a complaint against the public

entity, the facts underlying each cause of action in the

complaint must have been “fairly reflected” in the timely claim. 

Stockett v. Ass’n of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Auth.,

99 P.3d 500, 503 (Cal. 2004). If they are not fairly reflected

in the claim, the plaintiff is barred from raising the new causes

of action in the complaint. Id. 

However, the claim need not include every underlying fact

and cause of action later alleged by the plaintiff in the

complaint. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 5 of 8
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

So long as the complaint is not based on an entirely different

set of facts, the factual background in the claim can provide

adequate notice to defendants: “where the complaint merely

elaborates or adds further detail to a claim, but is predicated

on the same fundamental actions or failures to act by defendants,

courts have generally found the claim fairly reflects the facts

pled in the complaint.” Stockett, 99 P.3d at 503. The test is

one of substantial compliance, not strict compliance. Johnson v.

San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 217 Cal. App. 3d 692, 697 (1990). 

The claims statutes are not intended to be “traps for the

unwary,” and their requirements should be given a liberal

construction in order to permit full adjudication of the case on

its merits. Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff filed a timely claim,

and that the City rejected it. (Compl. Ex. A, Ex. B; Def.’s Mot.

Dismiss Attach. 1.) Therefore, the issue is whether Plaintiff’s

fifth through seventh causes of action are sufficiently related

to the filed Claim that Defendants had adequate notice to defend

against the fifth through seventh causes of action before

Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

In White v. Superior Court, 225 Cal App. 3d 1505 (1990), the

tort claim alleged that the plaintiff was beaten and falsely

arrested by a police officer. Following rejection of that claim,

the plaintiff filed a complaint that included additional causes

of action alleging, among other things, negligent hiring,

training and retention, and intentional failure to train,

supervise, and discipline by the City of San Francisco. Id. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 6 of 8
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

 Both parties discuss Fall River Joint Unified School 3

District v. Superior Court of Shasta County, 206 Cal. App. 3d 431

(1988), which is readily distinguishable from the instant case. 

As the White court stated:

We realize that Fall River and this case are superficially

similar in that both plaintiffs sought to add allegations of

negligent supervision. But in Fall River the written claim

blamed only the door, not the poorly supervised students,

who were not even mentioned. Here, both the written claim

and the lawsuit identified the police officer as the

(continued...)

7

The White court rejected plaintiff’s claim that these new causes

of action were not fairly reflected in the claim filed with the

City, reasoning that both the claim and complaint were premised

on the same alleged mistreatment:

Both Plaintiff’s complaint and her claim were predicated on

the same fundamental facts - Officer Sanford’s alleged

mistreatment of Plaintiff. The causes of action for

negligent hiring, training, and retention and for failure to

train, supervise and discipline merely sought to show the

direct responsibility for Officer Sanford’s conduct. 

Plaintiff did not shift the fundamental facts about her

injury.

Id. at 1511.

The similarity between this case and White is striking. 

Plaintiff Colbert asserted the facts about her injury in her

initial claim. (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Attach. 1.) Her alleged

mistreatment by Defendants Rohde and Micander is the “fundamental

fact” underlying both her initial claim and the fifth through

seventh causes of action; Defendants Rohde and Micander figure

prominently in both Plaintiff’s Claim and Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶

14-33; Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Attach. 1.) As in White, the fifth

through seventh causes of action seek to adjudicate

responsibility for the police misconduct alleged by Plaintiff in

her Complaint. By adding these causes of action, Plaintiff did

not alter the fundamental assertions set forth in her Claim.3

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 7 of 8
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

(...continued) 3

principal actor.

White, 225 Cal. App. 3d at 1511. Similarly, Plaintiff Colbert

clearly makes Defendants Rohde and Micander the focus of both her

claim and her complaint.

It is also worth noting that the trend in California is

clearly moving away from the line of cases represented by Fall

River, and toward the more generous position encapsulated in

White. See, e.g., Dixon v. City of Livermore, 127 Cal. App. 4th

32, 40 (2005) (“most recently, our Supreme Court has upheld the

rule of White...”). 

8

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 8, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/09/06 Page 8 of 8