Trout v. Cnty. of Madera

KEITH TROUT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MADERA, et al., Defendants.

No. 21-cv-06061-PJH

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 6, 2022

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR IMPROPER VENUE RE: DKT. NOS 86, 89, 90-1, 92, 94

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge.

Before the court are several motions to dismiss the complaint. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DISMISSES the complaint for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

Calley Jean Garay (“Calley”) was fatally shot by her estranged husband, Julio Garay, Sr. (“Julio Sr.”), as she was leaving a medical appointment at Camarena Health Clinic in Madera County, California, on July 14, 2020.^[1] Plaintiff Keith Trout is the maternal grandfather and guardian ad litem of Calley's four minor children, DA, JG1, JG2, and JG3.

Plaintiff seeks to hold 19 defendants liable for their respective roles in Calley's death and the events that followed. Defendants are listed as follows: County of Madera Community Action Partnership of Madera County, Inc. (“CAPMC”); Martha Diaz Shelter; Camarena Health Camarena Health Foundation; Lorena Blanco Elenez; Deborah Martinez, Director of the County of Madera Department of Social Services; Will Lightbourne, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”); Kim Johnson, Director of the California Department of Social Services (“DSS”); Danny Morris, sued as an individual and as deputy director of the County of Madera Department of Social Services; Sara Bosse, sued as an individual and as the Public Health Director of the Madera County Department of Public Health; Mattie Mendez, sued as an individual and acting as the executive director of the CAPMC; Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”); Bronco Professional Park, LLC; Bronco Professional Park Owners Association; Rose Alvarado; Julio L. Garay, Sr. (“Julio Sr.”); Julio J. Garay, Jr. (“Julio Jr.”); and Amanda M. Garay.

A. Death of Calley

Calley was tragically murdered by her estranged spouse, Julio Sr., on July 14, 2020. FAC ¶¶ 20, 55, 122-69. As alleged, Calley and her children had long suffered physical abuse at the hands of Julio Sr. See FAC ¶¶ 121-27. She reported the abuse to the Chowchilla Police Department, which led to Julio Sr.'s arrest and charges of criminal spousal and child abuse. FAC ¶¶ 127-29. Calley and the children became residents of the Martha Diaz Shelter, a domestic violence shelter in Madera County owned and operated by defendant CAPMC. FAC ¶ 128.

During their stay at the shelter, some three months after Calley separated from her husband, she planned to attend a medical appointment. Prior to the medical appointment, defendant Lorena Blanco Elenez, an employee of defendant Camarena Health, called the telephone number Calley previously provided to remind Calley of her appointment. FAC ¶ 135. The number Elenez called reached Julio Sr.'s residence, and Elenez provided information regarding the time and place of Calley's upcoming appointment. FAC ¶ 135.

On July 14, 2020, a staff member from the Martha Diaz Shelter drove Calley to the scheduled medical appointment at Camarena Health. FAC ¶ 154-56. Calley's three boys accompanied her to the appointment. FAC ¶¶ 150, 154. While Calley was attending the appointment, Julio Sr. waited in the parking lot in front of Camarena Health for Calley to re-emerge, having been informed of her presence by Elenez. FAC ¶ 151. After the appointment, Calley left the building, and walked to the waiting transportation van with her son. FAC ¶ 172. Calley was in the process of putting her son inside the vehicle when Julio Sr. approached them from behind and shot her several times. FAC ¶¶ 173-75. Calley attempted to shield her sons and died from her injuries. Julio Sr. fled but was subsequently caught, tried, and convicted of her murder. FAC ¶ 179.

B. Subsequent Abuse of Three Boys

Following the death of their mother, JG1, JG2, and JG3 (“the three boys”) were placed in the custody of Child Welfare Services, a program of the County's Department of Social Services. FAC ¶ 184. The three boys spent weekdays in foster care and weekends with their mother's friend, Sarah Rodriguez, and her husband, Pete Rodriguez, beginning in July 2020. FAC ¶ 191. Child Welfare Services removed the three boys from foster care and placed them with Julio Garay, Jr. (“Julio Jr.”), in September 2020. FAC ¶ 192. The Rodriguezes' weekend visitations with the three boys were cut down to once monthly. FAC ¶ 193. The Rodriguezes found the boys' behavior to become more aggressive and dysregulated following their placement with Julio Jr., and the Rodriguezes found bruises and signs of physical abuse on the boys. FAC ¶¶ 194-201. Plaintiff alleges that the County of Madera as well as several employees and subcontractors “failed and refused to employ or allow the boys treatment care examination by competent providers to provide psychotherapy and treatment for the mental disorders and mental health of” the three boys. FAC ¶ 204.

C. Transfer of Real Property

During the course of their marriage, up until the separation, Julio Sr. and Calley lived with their three boys at 1101 Sonoma Avenue in Chowchilla, which is situated in Madera County. FAC ¶ 63. Plaintiff alleges that Julio Sr. and Calley had been the true owners of the property since 1998, though title was recorded in the name of Julio Sr.'s mother as a strawman to hide the residence from his creditors. FAC ¶ 216. Julio Sr.'s mother, Alvarado, never collected rent nor held any beneficial interest in the property, and Julio Sr. at all times occupied and paid the incidents of ownership, including taxes, insurance, and maintenance. FAC ¶¶ 216-18.

On or about the date of the shooting, July 14, 2020, Julio Sr. directed Alvarado to deed the property to his daughter, Amanda, and he rushed the filing of a transfer deed to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Madera County. FAC ¶ 220. No consideration was paid for the transfer. FAC ¶ 221-22. Plaintiff alleges that Julio Sr., Alvarado, and Amanda together conspired to hide the property and to hinder creditors. FAC ¶ 228-31. Plaintiff alleges the transfer of the property was fraudulent. FAC ¶ 232. Julio Sr.'s creditors include the minors based on (1) the community property and family support to which Calley would have been entitled following the separation as well as (2) the damages owed to the minors as heirs and survivors. FAC ¶¶ 210-11.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiff, a resident of North Dakota, filed the original complaint initiating this lawsuit on August 6, 2021. Dkt. 1. The parties stipulated to a briefing schedule for defendants' responsive pleadings. Dkt. 46. Defendants submitted various motions seeking dismissal and/or transfer of venue, and plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) in response. Dkt. 71.

The FAC includes several causes of action that are not clearly enumerated. In general, plaintiff's claims fall within the following theories of liability: (1) constitutional violations, (2) negligence and gross negligence, (3) wrongful death, (4) violation of privacy, (5) survivorship, and (6) fraudulent conveyance.

The parties again stipulated to a briefing schedule for defendants' motions challenging the complaint. Dkt. 78. The court accepted the stipulation, noting that any hearing would take place after April 11, 2022. Dkt. 80.

This order focuses on the motions to dismiss for improper venue brought under Rule 12(b)(3) at Dkt. 86 (County et al.); Dkt. 89 at Headnote III (CAPMC et al.); Dkt. 90-1 at Headnote III.C. (Bronco); Dkt. 92 at Headnote I (Johnson); and Dkt. 98 (Becerra); as well as Baass' related motion at Dkt. 94 contesting service of process. The Rule 12(b)(3) motions alternatively seek dismissal or transfer to the Eastern District. The order does not reach defendants' motions for discretionary transfer under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), nor does it reach the several motions to dismiss brought under Rules 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6).

DISCUSSION

Though the majority of defendants reside in Madera County and most of the actions giving rise to plaintiff's claims took place within the geographic boundaries of the Eastern District of California, Trout initiated this lawsuit in this district on a theory that one defendant resides here. Whether that single defendant was properly served is a matter of dispute, and the court considers it as a threshold issue before addressing whether this case must be dismissed for improper venue.

A. Insufficient Service of Process

Plaintiff delivered process to now-former Director of DHCS, William Lightbourne, at his home in Santa Cruz County, California, on September 16, 2021. Dkt. 32. The current Director of DHCS, Michelle Baass, avers that service was invalid to bring her office into the case. Though service on a state agency can be accomplished by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the chief executive officer or other head of the entity under California law, Baass attests that Lightbourne was no longer the head of DHCS on the day of plaintiff's purported delivery. Plaintiff disagrees that Lightbourne was no longer head of the agency at the time he was served, and he additionally argues that service on Lightbourne was effective because he still had “ostensible authority” to accept service on behalf of the agency.

1. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) permits a motion to dismiss to be brought for insufficient service of process. A federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant if service of...