Benton v. Cnty. of Los Angeles

BENNIE BENTON, III, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 20-6159-VBF(E)

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 9, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank, United States District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on July 10, 2020. Defendants are the County of Los Angeles (“County”) and ten fictitious “Doe” defendants. Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's alleged denial of Plaintiff's application to construct an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (“ADU”) on Plaintiff's residential real property. Plaintiff's property is located partially in the City of Los Angeles (“City”) and partially in an unincorporated portion of the County.

On July 31, 2020, Defendant County filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint.^[1] However, on August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On August 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a Minute Order, observing that the motion to dismiss the original Complaint was moot.

On September 8, 2020, Defendant County filed a “Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike, ” accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice. Among other things, the Motion to Dismiss asserts that the present action is duplicative of an action Plaintiff previously filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC723569. On September 28 2020, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff Bennie Benton III[‘s] Opposition, etc.” (“Opposition”). On October 5, 2020, Defendant filed “Defendant County of Los Angeles' Reply, etc.”

On October 19, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order: (1) observing that review of the Los Angeles Superior Court's docket in Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC723569, suggested that, on October 13, 2020, the Superior Court granted a defense motion for summary judgment; and (2) ordering the parties (jointly or separately) to file a copy of any document reflecting the Superior Court's ruling. On October 21, 2020, Defendant filed a “Notice of Ruling Granting Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion for Summary Judgment in Superior Court, ” to which was attached a copy of the Superior Court's October 13, 2020 minute order in Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC723569, granting summary judgment for Defendant in that case.

On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed: (1) ‘Plaintiff Bennie Benton III[‘s] Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition of [sic] Motion to Dismiss, etc.” (“Plaintiff's First Supplemental Memorandum”; (2) an unsworn document titled “Plaintiff Bennie Benton III[‘s] Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, etc.”; (3) “Plaintiff Bennie Benton III[‘s] Request for Judicial Notice, etc.”; and (4) “Plaintiff Bennie Benton III[‘s] Brief in Objection [sic] to Request for Judicial Notice, etc.”

On November 18, 2020, Defendant County filed “Defendant County of Los Angeles' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, etc.” (“Defendant's First Supplemental Memorandum”). On the same day, Defendant County filed a “Request for Judicial Notice, etc.” inter alia seeking judicial notice of an order of the Superior Court granting summary judgment for Defendant in Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC723569. /// ///

On January 25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order: (1) observing that review of the docket of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC 723569, suggested that the Superior Court entered judgment in that case on or about January 14, 2021;^[2] and (2) ordering the parties to file Supplemental Memoranda attaching a copy of any document reflecting any judgment entered by the Superior Court in case number BC723569 and addressing the impact herein of any such judgment.

On February 8, 2020, Defendant County filed: (1) “Defendant County of Los Angeles' Second Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, etc.” (“Defendant's Second Supplemental Memorandum”); and (2) a “Request for Judicial Notice,, etc., ” inter alia attaching a copy of the judgment filed on January 4, 2021 in Benton v. County of Los Angeles, case number BC723569, in favor of the County and against Plaintiff.

Also on February 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff Bennie Benton III['s] Supplemental Memorandum, etc., ” (“Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Memorandum”), also attaching a copy of the Superior Court's January 4, 2021 judgment.

STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

The Court must accept as true all non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint and must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009). “Generally, a court may not consider material beyond the complaint in ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion.” Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and footnote omitted). The Court may consider “only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Schneider v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (“In determining the propriety of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving papers, such as memorandum in opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss.”) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, in ruling on the sufficiency of the First Amended Complaint, the Court has not considered new factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's opposing papers or Plaintiff's unsworn “Declaration.” However, the Court may consider facts raised for the first time in an opposition in determining whether to grant leave to amend. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Court may not dismiss a complaint without leave to amend unless “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d at 1212 (citation omitted); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district court should grant leave to amend “unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

I. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant seeks judicial notice of: (1) certain documents filed in Plaintiff's state court case, Benton v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC723569; (2) the original Complaint filed in the current action; and (3) Los Angeles County Ordinance 21.24.250 (see Defendant's “Request for Judicial Notice, etc.” filed September 8, 2020; Defendant's “Request for Judicial Notice, etc., filed November 18, 2020; Defendant's “Request for Judicial Notice, etc.” filed February 8, 2021). The Court grants Defendant's Requests for Judicial Notice. See Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of state court dockets and documents filed in state court proceedings); Tollis, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1066 (2008) (court may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances); Fed.R.Evid. 201. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. See id.

II. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice

To the extent Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of documents which are attached as exhibits to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is unnecessary. As indicated above, the Court may consider documents attached to the pleading in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d at 1212. The remaining documents attached to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice, including a tort claim, emails, an alleged “Fire Report” and an alleged “Unsafe” placard, are not proper subjects of judicial notice. See Fed.R.Evid. 201. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is denied.

PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

I. The Original Complaint

In the original Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for promissory estoppel, “partial regulatory taking” and alleged violation of equal protection. Plaintiff alleged:

In 2017, the County Department of Regional Planning, as part of a homeless initiative program, recommended a “Second Dwelling Units Pilot Program” whereby second dwelling units, also known as “accessory dwelling units, ” would be a source of affordable housing in single-family neighborhoods (Complaint, Ex. 1). A homeowner who qualified could receive a subsidy of $75, 000 per unit (id.). Plaintiff owned a parcel of real property on 121st Street, an address in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County (id., ¶ 6). On or about March 14, 2018 Plaintiff applied to participate in the County's ADU program (id.). By email dated March 23, 2018, Plaintiff was informed that he had been advanced to the next round of the application...