Black v. City of Blythe

562 F.Supp.3d 820

Byron BLACK

v.CITY OF BLYTHE, et al.

Case No. EDCV 21-1672 JGB (SPx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Filed February 25, 2022

Cory R. Weck, Brynna D. Popka ; McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Ontario, CA, for Plaintiff Byron Black.

S. Frank Harrell, Jesse K. Cox, Lukas R. Kramer; Lynberg and Watkins, P.C., Orange, CA, for Defendant County of Orange.

Allen Christiansen ; Law Offices of Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, APC; Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant City of Blythe.

Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING Plaintiff's Application to File Exhibit Under Seal (Dkt. No. 26); (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Defendant City of Blythe's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19); (3) GRANTING Defendant County of Orange's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20); and (4) VACATING the February 28, 2022 Hearing (IN CHAMBERS)

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant City of Blythe ("Blythe MTD," Dkt. No. 19), motion to dismiss filed by Defendant County of Orange ("Orange MTD," Dkt. No. 20) (collectively, "Motions"), and Plaintiff Byron Black's application to file an exhibit under seal ("Application," Dkt. No. 26). The Motions are filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court determines these matters are appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ; L.R. 7-15. After considering all papers filed in support of the Application, and in support of and in opposition to the Motions, the Court GRANTS the Application, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Blythe MTD, and GRANTS the Orange MTD. The Court VACATES the February 28, 2022 hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff Byron Black ("Black") filed a complaint against the City of Blythe, City of Santa Ana, County of Orange ("County"), J. Cardona, and Does 1 through 100 in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1-1.) On October 1, 2021, the City of Blythe removed the action. ("Notice of Removal," Dkt. No. 1.) On October 7, 2021, Mr. Black voluntarily dismissed City of Santa Ana from the case. (Dkt. No. 9.)

On October 29, 2021, Mr. Black filed a first amended complaint against the City of Blythe ("City"), the County, J. Cardona, and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, "Defendants"). ("FAC," Dkt. No. 16.) The FAC alleges five causes of action: (1) false imprisonment/false arrest against all Defendants; (2) violation of Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all Defendants; (4) negligence against all Defendants; and (5) municipal liability for failure to train under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and Does 1 through 10. (See FAC.)

On November 29, 2021, the City filed its motion to dismiss. (See Blythe MTD.) Mr. Black opposed on December 6, 2021. ("Blythe MTD Opposition," Dkt. No. 22.) The same day, Mr. Black also filed the Application. (See Appl.) On December 13, 2021, Mr. Black replied. ("Blythe MTD Reply," Dkt. No. 28.)

On November 29, 2021, the County also filed its motion to dismiss. (See Orange MTD.) Mr. Black opposed on December 6, 2021. ("Orange MTD Opposition," Dkt. No. 23.) Mr. Black replied on December 13, 2021. ("Orange MTD Reply," Dkt. No. 29.)

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The following allegations are accepted as true for the purposes of the Motion:

On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff Byron Black was relaxing at home with his wife, son, and brother in Orange County, California, when a man dressed like a Fed-Ex delivery driver rang his doorbell. (FAC ¶ 15.) Mr. Black opened the door, and the man asked him to step outside to sign for a package. (Id. ¶ 16.) As Mr. Black stepped outside, three men dressed in plain clothes, along with the man dressed like a delivery driver, surrounded Mr. Black, handcuffed him, and told him he was under arrest. (Id. ¶ 17.)

The men informed Mr. Black that they were arresting him pursuant to a warrant issued by the County of Riverside, California on a felony vandalism charge. (Id. ¶ 19.) Mr. Black was afraid, confused, and humiliated. (Id. ¶ 18.) His son came downstairs because of the commotion, but Mr. Black pleaded with him to go back upstairs. (Id. ) Mr. Black's wife witnessed her husband handcuffed and in fear for his safety. (Id. ) Because these incidents took place in front of his house, Mr. Black was also in full view of neighbors and passersby. (Id. ) Before the men took him away, Mr. Black gave his wedding ring to his wife. (Id. ¶ 20.)

Mr. Black was transported to the Orange County Jail and held on a $5,000 bond. (Id. ) The handcuffs placed on Mr. Black caused great pain to his wrists, arms, and shoulders. (Id. ¶ 21.) At the jail, Mr. Black was searched and processed. (Id. ) He was subjected to x-rays, DNA collection, and probing medical questions. (Id. ) While he waited in jail, Mr. Black feared for his health and safety, particularly in light of the Coronavirus-2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic.

At around 3:00 a.m. the next day, July 18, 2020, Mr. Black was released. (Id. ¶ 24.) Mr. Black retained counsel for the forthcoming criminal trial for the felony charges. (Id. ¶ 25.)

On or about August 11, 2020, the judge presiding over Mr. Black's felony case signed a certificate of identity theft and made a judicial finding of factual innocence. (Id. ¶ 27.) The judge determined that Mr. Black's "identity has been mistakenly associated with a record of the criminal conviction in this case" and that Mr. Black "is not the person for whom the warrant in this case was issued." (Id. ) He found that "there is no reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner committed the offense in this case, and that the petitioner is factually innocent of that offense." (Id. )

On or about September 3, 2020, the Blythe Police Department ("Blythe PD") issued a supplemental incident report ("Supplemental Incident Report") regarding Mr. Black's arrest, detention, and imprisonment. (Id. ¶ 28.) The Supplemental Incident Report found that the warrant to arrest, detain, or imprison Mr. Black for the felony vandalism charge was erroneously issued. (Id. ) The Report identified the suspect who should have been named in the original warrant as William Black, a man who is nearly ten years older than Mr. Black and has blond hair and blue eyes. (Id. ) Mr. Black has brown hair and hazel eyes. (Id. )

Mr. Black alleges that Blythe PD officers, including Defendant J. Cardona, issued, or caused to be issued, the warrant for his arrest. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 29, 31, 39.) He further alleges that the men who arrested him on July 17, 2020 were members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department Tactical Apprehension Unit. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 31–32, 40.) He asserts that all Defendants unlawfully imprisoned him, or caused his unlawful imprisonment at the Orange County Jail. (Id. ¶ 31.) Their actions caused Mr. Black injury, severe emotional distress, and pain and suffering. (Id. ¶¶ 39–42.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Application to Seal

There is a strong presumption against filing documents under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, two standards govern requests to seal documents: the "compelling reasons" standard and the "good cause" standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 667 (9th Cir. 2010). The "good cause" standard is an "exception" to the "presumptive ‘compelling reasons’ standard" and only applies to "sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case." Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). For all other cases, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of presenting "compelling reasons." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. "[T]he party must ‘articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’ " Id.

B. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (" Rule 12(b)(6)") tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint. "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Factual allegations must be enough to "raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (" Rule 8(a)"), which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief," in order to give the defendant "fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id.; see Horosny v. Burlington Coat Factory, Inc., 2015 WL 12532178, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2015). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must accept all material allegations in the complaint—as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them—as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) ; ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005) ; Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a...