The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF LEONARD BROWN, et al., Case No. 22-cv-05457-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 23
ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
The motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs move to strike the
County Defendants’ fourth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses. The County Defendants
have agreed to withdraw the seventh affirmative defense, so only the fourth and sixth defenses
are at issue. Dkt. No. 27 at 2.
The fourth affirmative defense raises certain California Government Code immunities to
the state law claims. The County Defendants concede that the immunities they’ve identified are
not available to all the County Defendants, but they have not identified which immunities each
defendant is asserting. Dkt. No. 27 at 8. “A plaintiff should not have to guess at who is asserting
a defense or to which claim a defense applies.” Neylon v. County of Inyo, No. 1:16-CV-0712
AWI JLT, 2017 WL 3670925, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017). And without clearly delineating
which immunities each defendant is asserting, it is impossible to tell whether the defendants have
identified a sufficient factual basis for those immunities. See id. The motion to strike is granted
as to the fourth affirmative defense.
The sixth affirmative defense raises qualified immunity and “good faith” immunity. The
County Defendants have clarified that only the individual County employee defendants raise the
immunity defenses to the section 1983 constitutional claims brought against them. Given that
clarification, the motion to strike is denied as to the sixth affirmative defense. See Neylon, 2017
WL 3670925, at *2-3.
The County Defendants may file an amended answer within 14 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2023 =
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge