Alexander Becker et al v. County of Alameda et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01664

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting {{18}} Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALEXANDER BECKER, et al., Case No. 15-cv-1664-PJH 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 On October 28, 2015, defendants' motion to dismiss came on for hearing before 15 this court. Plaintiffs Alexander Becker and Stuart Becker ("plaintiffs") appeared through 16 their counsel, Benjamin Nisenbaum. Defendants County of Alameda, Wesley Chea, 17 Gary Codde, and Fenton Culley ("defendants") appeared through their counsel, Amy 18 Leifur Halby. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully 19 considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, 20 the court hereby GRANTS defendants' motion as stated at the hearing and as follows. 21 At the hearing, plaintiffs conceded that the two claims brought by Stuart Becker 22 are time barred. Accordingly, the third and sixth causes of action, to the extent asserted 23 by Stuart Becker, are dismissed without leave to amend. 24 Plaintiffs also conceded that the operative first amended complaint ("FAC") fails to 25 plead facts regarding the tolling of plaintiff Alexander Becker's claims during the time that 26 criminal charges were pending against him. Thus, as stated at the hearing, defendants' 27 motion to dismiss the second through sixth causes of action brought by Alexander Becker 28 is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall have until November 25, 2015 to file a 1 sec cond amen nded compla aint in acco ordance witth this order, and defendants sha all have 21 2 days thereafte er to answe er or otherw wise respon nd to the co omplaint. N No new claim ms or 3 parties may be b added without leave e of court or the agree ement of all parties. 4 Finally, defendantts argue tha at the state e law claimss asserted a against the county 5 (i.e e., the seco ond, third, fifth, and six xth causes o of action) fa ail to identiffy a statutory basis forr 6 the e county's liability. Ho owever, as noted n at the e hearing, tthe second cause of a action does 7 cite e California a Civil Code e § 52.1. Defendants' D motion is D DENIED on n this basis as to the 8 sec cond cause e of action, but GRANT TED with le eave to ame end as to th he third, fiftth, and sixth h 9 cau uses of action. 10 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 11 Da ber 29, 2015 ated: Octob 12 __ __________ __________ __________ _______ Northern District of California United States District Court PH HYLLIS J. HHAMILTON 13 Un nited Statess District Ju udge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2