Estate of Jimmy Ray Hatfield et al v. County of Lake et al
Filing
156
ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 123 Motion for Leave to File; denying 126 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 128 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
ESTATE OF JIMMY RAY HATFIELD,
et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT
COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 11-2396 PJH
12
Defendants.
_______________________________/
13
Defendants (1) Adventist Health Clearlake Hospital (“Adventist”) and (2) Lake
14
County Department of Mental Health employees Patricia Trujillo and Kristy Kelly’s separate
15
motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (“SAC”) came on for hearing on
16
August 22, 2012 before this court. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Michael
17
Green. Adventist appeared through its counsel, Denise Billups-Slone; and Trujillo and
18
Kelly appeared through their counsel, Steven Enochian. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file
19
an amended complaint also came on for hearing on August 22, 2012 before this court.
20
Defendants City of Clearlake, Allan Wade McClain, Timothy Hobbs, Rodd Joseph, Lauren
21
Vance, Travis Lenz, and Tyler Paulsen oppose plaintiffs’ motion, and appeared through
22
their counsel, Kevin Allen. Counsel for William Durkin, Barry Marsh, and for Lake County,
23
Eric Gale, also attended the hearing. Having read all the papers and carefully considered
24
the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
25
defendants’ motions, and GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion, for the reasons stated at the hearing,
26
and summarized below as follows:
27
28
Adventist’s motion to dismiss is DENIED for the reasons set forth in this court’s May
29, 2012 order, and because any new evidence submitted by Adventist is more properly
1
considered at the summary judgment stage, rather than the pleading stage. See, e.g.,
2
Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993).
3
Trujillo’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to both the fourth cause of action (for
4
general negligence) and the sixth cause of action (for violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6).
5
Both causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. The court finds that the fourth cause of
6
action is duplicative of the fifth cause of action (for professional negligence), and further
7
notes that plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the fourth cause of action. As to the sixth
8
cause of action, the court finds that plaintiffs have not shown that section 845.6 applies in
9
anything other than a custodial environment. The single case relied upon by plaintiffs
(George v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dept., 2010 WL 4117381 (N.D. Cal. 2010)) involved
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
claims against jail personnel, and is thus inapplicable here.
12
Kelly’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the third cause of action (for failure to
13
train). Plaintiffs shall be given one final opportunity to amend this cause of action to allege
14
facts sufficient to state a claim under Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 815 (1994). Kelly’s
15
motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is DENIED without prejudice.
16
Finally, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is GRANTED.
17
Plaintiffs shall have 21 days to file an amended complaint, which shall include only the
18
following changes: (1) adding a cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act
19
against the City of Clearlake defendants, (2) amending the third cause of action (asserted
20
against Kelly) to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for failure to train, and (3) clarifying
21
that no constitutional claims are being asserted against Adventist. Plaintiffs are not
22
permitted to make any other changes to the amended complaint without leave of court.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
