Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos

1

SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ALTOS, et al., Defendants.

No. 23-cv-02928-SVK

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 22, 2024

ORDER ON:

(1) DEFENDANT PAMELA JACOBS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 48];

(2) DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ALTOS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. 49];

(3) DEFENDANT PAMELA JACOBS' MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT [DKT. 50];

(4) DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ALTOS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [DKT. 57];

(5) DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ALTOS' MOTION TO STRIKE STATE CLAIMS [DKT. 59];

(6) PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO OBJECT TO REPLY EVIDENCE [DKT. 82];

(7) PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RJN RE DKT. 83 [DKT. 84];

(8) OMNIBUS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [DKT. 79];

(9) DEFENDANT JACOBS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO SEEK JUDICIAL NOTICE [DKT. 87];

(10) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO RESPOND TO JACOBS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE [DKT. 88]; AND

(11) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO RESPOND TO CITY'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL [DKT. 88];

SUSAN VAN KEULEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Satish Ramachandran, proceeding pro se, has owned a residential property in the City of Los Altos since 1993 Dkt. 40 (First Amended Complaint or “FAC”) ¶ 1. Plaintiff sought to renovate his home in 2013, was denied permits by the City of Los Altos, was cited for violations of the Los Altos Municipal Code following the City's inspection of his property in 2018, and asserts he was harmed through a deprivation of constitutional rights and a conspiracy between the City, certain former employees of the City, and his neighbor Pamela Jacobs. See generally FAC. Plaintiff was embroiled in litigation and other proceedings involving Jacobs and the City for approximately six years before Plaintiff filed this action. The Defendants in this action are Pamela Jacobs (“Jacobs”), the City of Los Altos (“City”), and three former employees of the City: Kirk Ballard, Jon Biggs, and Chris Jordan (Ballard, Biggs, and Jordan are referred to as the “Individual Defendants”). See FAC ¶¶ 2-6. All Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. 9, 18, 19, 74, 75, 76.

Now before the Court are five motions that the Court will sometimes refer to as the “primary motions”:

(1) Jacobs' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48);

(2) the City's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 49);

(3) Jacobs' motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Dkt. 50);

(4) the City's motion for sanctions against Plaintiff (Dkt. 57); and

(5) the City's motion to strike Plaintiff's state claims (Dkt. 59).

Also before the Court are:

(6) Plaintiff's administrative motion for leave to object to reply evidence (Dkt. 82);

(7) Plaintiff's administrative motion for leave to file a request for judicial notice (Dkt. 84);

(8) Jacobs' administrative motion for leave to seek judicial notice (Dkt. 87);

(9) Plaintiff's administrative motion for leave to respond to Jacobs' administrative motion for leave to seek judicial notice (Dkt. 88); and

(10) Plaintiff's administrative motion for leave to respond to the City's notice of supplementary material (Dkt. 91).

Finally, before the Court is:

(11) an omnibus request for judicial notice that the City filed at the Court's direction on February 2, 2024, which collected all requests for judicial notice (“RJNs”) that had been filed by any Party as of that date (Dkt. 79).

For the reasons discussed below, after reviewing the briefing, the case file, and relevant law, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Jacobs' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

(2) The City's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 49), in which the Individual Defendants joined (Dkt. 77), is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

(3) The City's motion to strike Plaintiff's state claims (Dkt. 59), in which the Individual Defendants joined (Dkt. 77), is GRANTED and the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action asserted under the Bane Act and the eighth cause of action for state discrimination are STRICKEN, but the City's request for attorney fees in connection with the motion to strike is DENIED.

(4) The Court will hold an in-person hearing on Jacobs' motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Dkt. 50) and the City's motion for sanctions (Dkt. 57) on June 18, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

(5) This order also contains rulings on various administrative motions and requests for judicial notice associated with the pending motions.

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying facts concerning Plaintiff's attempt to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and make other improvements to his property beginning in 2013 and the ensuing conflict with the City, various individuals who were then City employees, and his neighbor Pamela Jacobs are discussed in detail in an order issued by Judge Beth Labson Freeman in Ramachandran v. Best, Best & Krieger, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 20-cv-3693-BLF (“Ramachandran II”), in which Judge Freeman granted various parties' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in that case. See ORJN Ex. 20.^[1] As explained in Judge Freeman's order, in July 2018, Defendant Jacobs' lawyer sent the City's attorney a letter regarding alleged code violations on Plaintiff's property. Id. at 5. The City subsequently obtained a search warrant, inspected Plaintiff's property, and charged Plaintiff with various violations of the Los Altos Municipal Code. Id. at 5-6. Many of Plaintiff's allegations in the present case relate to and stem from the 2018 search warrant. See, e.g., FAC ¶ 136 et seq.

A. The Parties

1. Plaintiff Satish Ramachandran

Plaintiff emigrated from India to the United States in 1986. FAC ¶ 1. In 1993, he purchased a residence on Santa Rita Avenue in Los Altos, where he has resided through the present. Id.

2. Defendant Pamela Jacobs

Since approximately 1992, Defendant Jacobs has owned property on Santa Rita Avenue next door to Plaintiff's property. Id. ¶ 6.

3. Defendant City of Los Altos

Defendant City of Los Altos is a municipality located within this District.

4. Defendant Kirk Ballard

Plaintiff alleges that from approximately 1993 until October 2021, Defendant Ballard was employed by the City in various positions, including as a building official. FAC ¶ 5.

5. Defendant Jon Biggs

Plaintiff alleges that from approximately January 2016 until December 2021, Defendant Biggs was the City's Director of Community Development. FAC ¶ 4.

6. Defendant Chris Jordan

Plaintiff alleges that from approximately April 2016 until December 2020, Defendant Jordan was the Los Altos City Manager. FAC ¶ 3.

B. Previous Actions

1. Jacobs et al. v. Ramachandran et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 17CV312418 (the “Property Action”)

On June 29, 2017, Pamela Jacobs and her husband James filed an action against Mr. Ramachandran in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 17cv312418 (the “Property Action”). ORJN Ex. 1. The Jacobses sought to quiet title and obtain declaratory and injunctive relief in this dispute over the boundary line between their respective properties. Id. Mr. Ramachandran filed a cross-complaint seeking similar relief and adding claims for nuisance and trespass against both James and Pamela Jacobs and for assault and battery against Mr. Jacobs. ORJN Ex. 2. At trial, Mr. Ramachandran sought to introduce a July 2018 letter from Ms. Jacobs' counsel to the Los Altos City Attorney, but the trial judge (Hon. Cynthia Lie) issued an order finding this letter “does not support a theory of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Conspiracy or Collusion” and “that this Exhibit shows only that the Jacobs made a complaint to the City of Los Altos and the Jacobs' counsel summarized a list of code enforcement grievances and provided it to the City.” ORJN Ex. 3. This letter will be discussed in more detail below.

Following a bifurcated bench trial, the trial court issued judgments in favor of the Jacobses on all causes of action in both their complaint and Mr. Ramachandran's cross-complaint. ORJN Ex. 4. The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgments in favor of the Jacobses. ORJN Ex. 5.

2. Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 18-cv-01223-VKD (“Ramachandran I”)

On February 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this District, Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. 18-cv-01223-VKD (“Ramachandran I”). The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi. The complaint in Ramachandran I originally named a number of defendants including the City, Ballard, and Biggs and alleged the following causes of action: violation of First Amendment Rights and Fourteenth Amendment rights (equal protection) under 42 U.S.C §1983; discrimination (both State and Federal), and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). ORJN Ex. 1. Plaintiff would later amend his complaint multiple times, and he ultimately added Jordan as a defendant, dropped his claims for Discrimination and IIED, and added claims against the City for Municipal Liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983. See ORJN Ex. 13.

In 2020, after discovery had closed, Plaintiff sought leave to amend the Third Amended Complaint and to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to include a new cause of action against the City defendants for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute. ORJN Ex. 11. Plaintiff also sought to add several defendants to Ramachandran I, including Pamela Jacobs, the City's former counsel, and Los Altos City Attorneys at the law firm Best, Best, and Krieger. Id. at 3-4; see also ORJN Ex. 12 at 5.

Except as noted in this paragraph, Judge DeMarchi denied Plaintiff's request to add new claims and defendants because the proposed pleading “[did] not concern any...