Robert Gonzalez v. Raul Sanchez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from the detention of plaintiff and searches of his vehicle and residences. The court held that defendants failed to comply with the court’s meet-and-confer requirement under Local Rule 12.1(c), and further concluded that the amended complaint plausibly alleged judicial deception, detention without probable cause, and involuntary consent to a search.

Holdings

1. A party seeking to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must engage opposing counsel in a substantive good-faith communication about the merits and whether the pleading can be cured by amendment; an after-hours email sent less than twenty-four hours before filing does not satisfy that requirement.
2. The First Amended Complaint plausibly stated claims for relief by alleging that Defendants obtained a warrant through judicial deception, detained Plaintiff without probable cause, and obtained consent to search under coercive circumstances.
3. Defendants may not defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by asking the court to resolve factual disputes concerning the truthfulness of the warrant affidavit, probable cause, or the voluntariness of consent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be denied or stricken because counsel failed to conduct the good-faith meet-and-confer required by District of Arizona Local Rule 12.1(c).
2. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly alleged constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including judicial deception, detention without probable cause, and involuntary consent to search.
3. Whether Defendants could defeat the complaint at the pleading stage by relying on their competing factual assertions concerning probable cause, the truthfulness of the warrant affidavit, and the voluntariness of Plaintiff's consent.

Disposition

denied