Shree Shiva, LLC v. City of Redding ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Shree Shiva, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00211-JAM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BUILDING ADVENTURES INC.’S 14 City of Redding, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. ORDER 18 Plaintiff Shree Shiva, LLC, the former owner of the 19 Americana Lodge in Redding, brought this action against 20 Defendants City of Redding, Debra Wright, James Wright, Brent 21 Weaver, Building Adventures, Inc. and Richardson C. Griswold, 22 regarding the City’s pursuit of nuisance abatement proceedings 23 against the motel property.1 See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. 24 As relevant here, Plaintiff brought claims for: (1) violation of 25 its substantive due process rights; (2) violation of its equal 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for January 25, 2022. 1 protection rights; (3) an unconstitutional taking of its 2 property; (4) fraud; and (5) punitive damages against all 3 Defendants. Id. 4 The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against 5 Defendants the City of Redding, Debra Wright, James Wright, Brent 6 Weaver and Richardson C. Griswold. See Order Granting Defendants 7 City of Redding’s, James Wright, Deborah Wright’s and Brent 8 Weaver’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 42; Order Granting Defendant 9 Griswold’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 58. Building Adventures, the 10 entity that acquired the property following abatement, now moves 11 to dismiss all claims against it. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 56. 12 Plaintiff opposed this motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 62. Building 13 Adventures replied. Reply, ECF No. 63. 14 Building Adventures first argues that Plaintiff does not 15 have standing to pursue the claims against it. Mot. at 5-6. To 16 satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, “a plaintiff must 17 show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete 18 and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or 19 hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the 20 challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as 21 opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed 22 by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 23 Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). As the 24 party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the 25 burden of establishing all three requirements are met. Lujan v. 26 Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). 27 /// 28 /// 1 Building Adventures contends that Plaintiff has failed to 2 satisfy the second prong of the standing analysis – causation. 3 Mot. at 5-6. Specifically, Building Adventures argues 4 Plaintiff’s injury arises from the alleged wrongful taking of 5 Plaintiff’s property through the abatement process, which 6 Building Adventures, who subsequently acquired the property, had 7 no part. Id. at 6. Thus, Plaintiff’s injury is not traceable to 8 the actions of Building Adventure. Plaintiff, by failing to 9 address this argument in opposition, concedes this point. See 10 Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1210 (N.D. 11 Cal. 2013) (deeming argument conceded where the defendant failed 12 to address it in opposition); see also Jenkins v. Cty. of 13 Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005). 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Building Adventures’ Motion to 15 Dismiss.2 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Building 16 Adventures are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE as Plaintiff has not 17 claimed it would be able to cure this deficiency with amendment. 18 See In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 991 19 (9th Cir. 1999) (a complaint may be dismissed with prejudice 20 where plaintiff fails to identify any additional facts they could 21 allege to save their claim), superseded by statute on other 22 grounds; see also Egan v. Schmock, 93 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1092 (N.D. 23 Cal. 2000) (dismissal may be ordered with prejudice where 24 amendment would be futile). Since all claims and Defendants have 25 26 2 Having decided the motion on these grounds, the Court denies as moot Defendant’s request for judicial notice. See Sikhs for 27 Justice “SFJ”, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 144 F.Supp.3d 1088, 1091 n.1 (denying as moot a request for judicial notice when the Court 28 did not rely on the documents). nnn nn nn nn nn nen ne nn in ne nn nnn nn nn nen on I SS I 1 | been dismissed the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: February 14, 2022 Lh Ion Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28