Barnaba v. County of San Diego

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted and partially denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed several individual defendants without prejudice because Plaintiffs added them rather than substituting them for previously unidentified Doe defendants, but allowed Plaintiff A.N.Y.’s claim for interference with familial association to proceed. The court permitted Plaintiffs to substitute the dismissed defendants for Doe defendants or seek leave to add them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs impermissibly added the individual defendants as new defendants rather than substituting them for Doe defendants, and because Plaintiffs did not obtain consent or leave to amend to add new defendants, the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
2. A.N.Y.'s allegations that he was very close with his father, enjoyed his love and company, and visited his father's home multiple times per week were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a reasonable inference of consistent involvement in his father's life and participation in child-rearing activities, and therefore stated a claim for interference with familial association.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs improperly added six individual defendants to the Second Amended Complaint without substituting them for Doe defendants or obtaining consent or leave to amend.
2. Whether Plaintiff A.N.Y. sufficiently alleged a constitutionally protected parent-child relationship to state a claim for interference with familial association under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Disposition

other