Rodarte v. Lester

Rodarte · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · May 22, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-3428-DJC-CKD (PS)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California vacated prior findings and recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court instead recommended granting the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissing the action without leave to amend because the plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act, the elements of negligence, or facts supporting a privacy claim against the defendant.

Holdings

  1. The prior findings and recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute were vacated because Rodarte's objections addressed the recommendation and also opposed the pending motion to dismiss.
  2. The negligence claim failed because Rodarte did not allege compliance with the California Government Claims Act and did not allege specific facts showing Lester's involvement or the elements of negligence.
  3. The breach-of-privacy claim failed because California Civil Code section 1798.29 applies to state agencies, not local agencies or cities, and Rodarte did not allege that Lester was associated with a state agency or engaged in any actionable conduct.
  4. Leave to amend should be denied as futile because the complaint alleged no facts concerning Lester's involvement or relation to the events and the opposition did not explain why Lester was being sued.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Rodarte's negligence claim stated a claim where he did not allege compliance with California's Government Claims Act or facts establishing Lester's duty, breach, causation, or involvement.
  2. Whether Rodarte's breach-of-privacy claim stated a claim where the cited California statute applies to state agencies, the defendant was not alleged to be associated with a state agency, and no conduct by the defendant was alleged.
  3. Whether amendment should be permitted or denied as futile.
  4. Whether the prior recommendation dismissing the case for failure to prosecute should be vacated in light of Rodarte's objections and opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)(followed)
  • Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • State of California v. Superior Ct., 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1239 (2004)(followed)
  • Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2008)(followed)
  • Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (1996)(followed)
  • Damner v. Facebook Inc., No. 20-CV-05177-JCS, 2020 WL 7862706, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2020)(followed)
  • California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…