United States District Court, E.D. California
Filip Novac; Iudita Novac; A.N., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem; et al., Plaintiffs,
County of Sacramento, a public entity; et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS; AND SUA SPONTE ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL
A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 15, 2018 Plaintiffs filed a civil rights action
against the County of Sacramento and four social workers for
the Sacramento Department of Health & Human Services
(“DHHS”)-Chandra Stewart, Catherine Bryant, Sonya
Howell, and Tong Vang (collectively “Social Worker
Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs Filip
Novac, Iudita Novac, and their minor children levy serious
allegations against Defendants, contending they interfered
with Filip and Iudita's parental rights, improperly
removed the children from their homes, and allowed those
children to stay with abusive foster families despite
filed a motion to dismiss this complaint for, among other
reasons, failure to comply with Rule 12(b)(6). See February
2019 Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, but it was virtually identical to the original
pleading. See First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 20. This led
Defendants to file a second motion to dismiss. March 2019
Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 22. The Court granted their motion,
dismissing four of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice:
1. Section 1983 claims based on “discrete acts”
that occurred before August 15, 2016;
2. All Article I, section 13 claims;
3. All common law tort claims against the County; and
4. Section 1983 claims against the Social Worker
that challenge quasi-prosecutorial conduct. Order Granting
Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (“Order”) at 11, ECF
No. 26. The Court also dismissed the following claims without
1. Section 1983 claim against the County;
2. All Unruh Civil Rights Act claims;
3. All Bane Act claims;
4. Section 1983 claims against the Social Worker Defendants
that did not challenge quasi-prosecutorial conduct; and
5. All common law tort claims against the Social Worker
Id. at 11-12.
to cure the deficiencies in their complaint, Plaintiffs filed
a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 28.
In form, this complaint differs from the two previous
complaints. But in substance, it continues to disregard the
requirements of Bell Atlantic v. Twombley, 550 U.S.
544 (2009); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009);
and the line of binding cases that follow. For this reason,
and those discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART
Defendants' most recent motion to dismiss. See Mot. to
Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 33. Specifically, the
Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against
the County and the Social Worker Defendants WITH PREJUDICE.
to any federal law claims, Plaintiffs' state law claims
are better suited for review in state court. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). The Court therefore declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Bane Act,
Unruh Civil Rights Act, and common law tort claims which now
must be pursued in an appropriate state court.