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.

Jen v. City And County of San Francisco

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 10, 2018

KAIMIN JIMMY JEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 91

          HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”). Dkt. No. 91. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS CCSF's motion.

         I.BACKGROUND

         A.Factual Allegations Because Plaintiff Kaimin Jimmy Jen has submitted no evidence in response to CCSF's motion for summary judgment, the Court briefly summarizes the relevant factual allegations in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint to provide context.

         Plaintiff, a former engineer, brought suit against CCSF and three other named defendants: Dennis Herrera (“Herrera”), city attorney for CCSF; Rafael Tores-Gil (“Tores-Gil”), supervisor of the Code Enforcement Division within the Building Department for CCSF; and Mike Klose (“Klose” and, collectively with CCSF, Herrera, and Tores-Gil, “Defendants”), the chief investigative officer for CCSF's district attorney's office. See Dkt. No. 60 (Fourth Amended Complaint, or “FAC”) ¶¶ 8-10. Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in 1999, Defendants engaged in “a campaign of . . . discrimination, harassment, retaliation, humiliation, defamation of character, intimidation, and malicious prosecution against [Plaintiff], his family and people of Chinese background, and other minorities.” Id. ¶ 13.

         This culminated in 2010, when Herrera “urged the District Attorney's Office to launch a criminal investigation” into Plaintiff regarding a forged signature and license stamp used on his construction projects. See Id. ¶ 21. Klose led the investigation into Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 23. During the course of their investigation, Defendants are alleged to have harassed Plaintiff, see Id. ¶ 22, ignored evidence favorable to Plaintiff, see Id. ¶¶ 23-24, and falsified evidence to “persuade the prosecutors to prosecute [Plaintiff] in violation of his civil rights, ” see Id. ¶ 25.

         On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff was arrested. Id. ¶ 29. CCSF “levied 232 fabricated charges against” Plaintiff, “set . . . bail at $50 million, ” and incarcerated Plaintiff for four years. See Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants “knew that there was no probable cause to charge [him] with any crime, ” but nonetheless “used and relied on evidence at the preliminary hearing to create probable cause they knew was false.” Id. ¶ 34. On August 8, 2014, however, “all charges were dismissed.” Id. ¶ 30.

         B. Procedural Posture

         Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on August 21, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. In response, CCSF filed a motion to strike, Dkt. No. 6, and a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 7. On July 11, 2016, the Court ruled on CCSF's motions. Dkt. No. 29. Construing the complaint liberally, the Court found that Plaintiff alleged several causes of action, but dismissed most of the claims with prejudice based on uncorrectable legal defects. See Dkt. No. 29 at 20-21.

         On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 38, which the Court struck on October 5, 2016, see Dkt. No. 47. Apparently without filing a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on October 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 49. On January 9, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend and striking it from the record because it was a legal brief rather than a complaint. Dkt. No. 57 at 2-3. In so doing, the Court enumerated Plaintiff's remaining claims: (1) false arrest and racial and national origin discrimination under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b) relating to his 2010 arrest and 2014 prosecution; and (2) racial and national origin discrimination and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 relating to his 2010 arrest and 2014 prosecution. See Id. at 2.

         Plaintiff filed the FAC on January 27, 2017. Dkt. No. 60. On February 13, 2017, CCSF moved to dismiss the FAC's fourth and fifth causes of action: violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(b), and false arrest and false imprisonment, respectively. See Dkt. No. 62 at 1. CCSF concurrently filed a motion to strike those causes of action from the FAC. See Dkt. No. 61. On April 20, 2017, the Court granted both motions, Dkt. No. 69, leaving only Plaintiff's claims of racial and national origin discrimination and conspiracy relating to his 2010 arrest and 2014 prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985.

         On June 29, 2017, CCSF filed a motion to dismiss the claims against Herrera, Tores-Gil, and Klose, Dkt. No. 85, and a motion for summary judgment as to the claims against CCSF, Dkt. No. 91. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either motion. Instead, on July 11, 2017, he filed a motion seeking, as relevant here, an extension of time to respond to CCSF's motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 99 at 4. On July 24, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for an extension of time and took CCSF's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment under submission.[1] Dkt. No. 105. The Court did allow Plaintiff until August 4, 2017 to file oppositions to those motions, however. See Id. On August 4, instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Court's order denying his July 11 motion for an extension of time, and sought 45 additional days to respond to the motions. Dkt. No. 106.

         On March 28, 2018, the Court granted CCSF's motion to dismiss. See Dkt. No. 119 at 1-3. In the same order, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff's August 4 request for reconsideration. See Id. at 3-4. It also directed Plaintiff to file any opposition to CCSF's pending motion for summary judgment by May 7, 2018, and warned Plaintiff that no further extensions would be granted. Id. at 5. Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion.

         II.LEGAL ...


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.