Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01664/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01664-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexander Becker
Plaintiff
Stuart Becker
Plaintiff
Wesley Chea
Defendant
Gary Codde
Defendant
County of Alameda
Defendant
Fenton Culley
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALEXANDER BECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-1664-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

On October 28, 2015, defendants’ motion to dismiss came on for hearing before 

this court. Plaintiffs Alexander Becker and Stuart Becker (“plaintiffs”) appeared through 

their counsel, Benjamin Nisenbaum. Defendants County of Alameda, Wesley Chea, 

Gary Codde, and Fenton Culley (“defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Amy 

Leifur Halby. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully 

considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, 

the court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion as stated at the hearing and as follows. 

At the hearing, plaintiffs conceded that the two claims brought by Stuart Becker 

are time barred. Accordingly, the third and sixth causes of action, to the extent asserted 

by Stuart Becker, are dismissed without leave to amend. 

Plaintiffs also conceded that the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) fails to 

plead facts regarding the tolling of plaintiff Alexander Becker’s claims during the time that 

criminal charges were pending against him. Thus, as stated at the hearing, defendants’ 

motion to dismiss the second through sixth causes of action brought by Alexander Becker 

is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have until November 25, 2015 to file a 

Case 4:15-cv-01664-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

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 

sec

da

pa

(i.e

the

cite

sec

cau

Da

cond amen

ys thereafte

rties may b

Finally

e., the seco

e county’s l

e California

cond cause

uses of act

IT IS S

ated: Octob

nded compla

er to answe

be added w

, defendant

ond, third, fi

iability. Ho

a Civil Code

e of action, 

ion. 

SO ORDER

ber 29, 201

aint in acco

er or otherw

ithout leave

ts argue tha

fth, and six

owever, as n

e § 52.1. D

but GRANT

RED. 

5 

2

ordance wit

wise respon

e of court o

at the state

xth causes o

noted at the

Defendants’ 

TED with le

__

PH

Un

th this orde

nd to the co

r the agree

e law claims

of action) fa

e hearing, t

motion is D

eave to ame

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

r, and defe

omplaint. N

ement of all 

s asserted a

ail to identif

the second 

DENIED on

end as to th

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ndants sha

No new claim

parties. 

against the

fy a statuto

cause of a

n this basis 

he third, fift

__________

udge 

all have 21 

ms or 

 county 

ry basis for

action does 

as to the 

th, and sixth

_______ 

r

h

Case 4:15-cv-01664-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2