Shree Shiva, LLC v. City of Redding ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Shree Shiva, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00211-JAM-KJN 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CITY OF REDDING’S, JAMES WRIGHT’S, 12 City of Redding, et al., DEBORAH WRIGHT’S AND BRENT WEAVER’S MOTION TO DISMISS 13 Defendants. 14 15 I. ORDER 16 Plaintiff Shree Shiva LLC, the former owner of the Americana 17 Lodge in Redding, brought this action against Defendants 18 regarding the City’s pursuit of nuisance abatement proceedings 19 against the motel property.1 See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. 20 Specifically, Plaintiff brought claims for: (1) violation of its 21 substantive due process rights; (2) violation of its equal 22 protection rights; (3) an unconstitutional taking of its 23 property; (4) fraud; and (5) punitive damages against all 24 Defendants. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff brought a claim for 25 breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Richardson Griswold, 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 August 10, 2021. 1 who is not a part of the present motions. Id. The City of 2 Redding, James Wright, Debra Wright and Brent Weaver moved to 3 dismiss all the claims against them. See City’s and James 4 Wright’s Mot to Dismiss ECF No. 7; Debra Wright’s and Brent 5 Weaver’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed 6 oppositions to these motions. See Opp’n to City’s and James 7 Wright’s Mot., ECF No. 25; Opp’n to Debra Wright’s and Brent 8 Weaver’s Mot., ECF No. 24. However, all of Plaintiff’s legal 9 arguments exceeded the Court’s page limit on opposition memoranda 10 and the Court has not read or considered these arguments. See 11 id.; see also Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 3-2. 12 Accordingly, these motions are treated as unopposed and the Court 13 GRANTS Defendants City of Redding’s, James Wright’s, Debra 14 Wright’s and Brent Weaver’s Motions to Dismiss. The only 15 question is whether Plaintiff should be given leave to amend. 16 The Court finds amendment would be futile for Plaintiff’s 17 federal claims since the statute of limitations has expired. For 18 actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s 19 statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Jones v. 20 Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). California has a two- 21 year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Cal. 22 Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Plaintiff’s causes of action accrued on 23 March 22, 2016, when the receiver took possession and control of 24 the property. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th 25 Cir. 2004) (explaining that federal law determines when a civil 26 rights claim accrues and under federal law a claim accrues when 27 the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is 28 the basis of the action); Compl. ¶ 75. Plaintiff filed the eee eee II ES ERM EI OSI I EO EEO 1 instant action on February 2, 2021, more than two years after the 2 causes of actions accrued. See generally Compl. Thus, 3 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are time barred. 4 Amendment of Plaintiff’s state law fraud claim is also 5 futile as it is precluded by the California Government Claims 6 | Act. See Robinson v. Alameda County, 875 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1043 7 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Before a person can sue a [California] public 8 entity or public employee for money damages for actions taken 9 | within the scope of the person’s employment, he or she must first 10 file a government claim pursuant to the CGCA.”) Plaintiff 11 effectively concedes this point and makes no argument that it can 12 allege facts showing compliance. Tajeda-Puentes v. Count of 13 Sacramento, No. 2:15-cv-00870-KJM-KJN, 2016 WL 1756958, at *2 14 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2016) (“By not addressing an argument that a 15 | defendant raises in a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff implicitly 16 concedes dismissal of its claim is appropriate.”) 17 Because the Court finds amendment would be futile, the Court 18 GRANTS Defendants the City of Redding’s, James Wright’s, Debra 19 | Wright’s and Brent Weaver’s Motions to Dismiss all claims against 20 them WITH PREJUDICE. See Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. 21 Servs., 454 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining a 22 district court need not grant leave to amend where amendment 23 | would be futile). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 31, 2021 26 kA 27 teiren staves odermacr 7008 28