Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jarreau-Griffin v. City of Vallejo

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 15, 2014

ANDREA JARREAU-GRIFFIN, , Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, , Defendants.

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Defendants City of Vallejo ("the City") and Kent Tribble move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Defs.' Mot. for J. on the Pleadings ("Mot.") at 3-4, ECF No. 38. The court submitted the matter without argument and, for the reasons below, DENIES the motion without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2010, defendant Tribble, a Vallejo police officer, shot and killed Guy J. Jarreau, Jr. ("the decedent"). First Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 7, ECF No. 15. Thereafter, plaintiff Jarreau-Griffin ("plaintiff"), [1] the decedent's mother and successor in interest, submitted a claim-for-damages form, which was received and filed by the City on May 17, 2011. Faruqui Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 24-1. Plaintiff eventually filed suit in this court on December 10, 2012, alleging several claims stemming from the shooting. FAC ¶¶ 25-39, ECF No. 1. When filing the claim-for-damages form, plaintiff was represented by John Burris, Faruqui Decl., Ex. A; however, the instant action was filed by new counsel, Corey Evans.

The shooting and subsequent claim for damages occurred during the pendency of the City's bankruptcy petition, filed on May 23, 2008. Req. for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. 1, ECF No. 39-1. However, despite receiving and filing the claim for damages, the City did not notify plaintiff of the bankruptcy proceedings, and plaintiff never filed a proof of claim. The bankruptcy court ultimately confirmed the City's plan for adjustment of debts on August 4, 2011, id., Ex. 4, ECF No. 39-4, and fixed an effective date of November 1, 2011, id., Ex. 5, ECF No. 39-5.

II. STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is "functionally identical" to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). It is properly granted where "the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." George v. Pacific-C.S.C. Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996). In both instances, the inquiry focuses on the interplay between the factual allegations of the complaint and the dispositive issues of law in the action, see Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), and courts "must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, " Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). This rule does not, however, apply to "a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, " Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), quoted in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), or to "allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice, " Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

"If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). "The court may, however, consider certain materials without converting the motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment. Such materials include... matters of judicial notice." Tumlinson Group, Inc. v. Johannessen, No. 2:09-cv-1089 JFM, 2010 WL 4366284, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (citing Lloyd v. Powell, No. C09-5734 BHS/KLS, 2010 WL 2560652, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2010); Van Buskirk v. CNN, 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2000); Baron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding court may properly take judicial notice of "matters of public record" on 12(b)(6) motion without converting to summary judgment motion).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants argue judgment on the pleadings is proper. Mot. at 4. They insist plaintiff's failure to file a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings precludes the instant action because any potential liability arose at the time of the shooting, well before the bankruptcy court confirmed the plan or fixed the effective date, and plaintiff had imputed notice of the proceedings through her then-counsel. Id. at 5-8. Thus, defendants conclude, even assuming a valid debt existed at one time, it was discharged as of the plan's effective date. Id. at 5-10.

Plaintiff responds that debtors owe a continuing obligation throughout bankruptcy proceedings to list all creditors and that it was thus incumbent upon the City to provide her with the required notice. Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. ("Opp'n") at 5-6, ECF No. 29. Further, she continues, the instant circumstances do not constitute imputed notice because plaintiff's then-counsel did not simultaneously represent other parties involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 10-13. She also argues that defendants improperly rely on extrinsic evidence in their motion and that the court should either disregard such evidence or convert the motion to one for summary judgment. Id. at 15.

A. Consideration of Matters Outside the Pleadings

As an initial matter, the court must determine whether it may properly consider facts surrounding the City's bankruptcy proceedings in deciding the instant motion. As noted, the court may consider "matters of judicial notice, " Tumlinson Group, 2010 WL 4366284, at *3, and "matters of public record, " Lee, 250 F.3d at 688-89, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. Matters properly subject to judicial notice include "fact[s]... not subject to reasonable dispute because... [they] can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." FED. R. EVID. 201(b).

Here, in arguing imputed notice, defendants rely on a number of facts not reflected in the parties' pleadings: (1) that Burris represented plaintiff in May 2011; (2) that Burris represented several claimants in the City's bankruptcy proceedings, beginning in August 2010; and (3) that Burris had notice of the City's bankruptcy proceedings in May 2011. Mot. at 3. The first fact can be "accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, " namely the claim-for-damages form signed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.