de novo review does not require 6 consideration of supplemental factual allegations that were not 7 presented to the Magistrate Judge
How later courts described this case
- de novo review does not require 6 consideration of supplemental factual allegations that were not 7 presented to the Magistrate Judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
9
10
Case No. CV 25-06271-DMG (AS)
11 ANGEL BROWN, et al.,
12 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
Plaintiffs,
13 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
v.
14 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 CITY OF GARDENA, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the
20
First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, the Report and
21
Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge (“Report” [Doc.
22
# 28]), and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
23
and Recommendation (“Objections” [Doc. # 29]).
24
25
The Report recommends the dismissal of the First Amended
26
Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs’ objections to the
27
28
1 Report do not merit any change to the Report’s findings or
2 recommendations.
3
4 Plaintiffs object that Defendant City of Gardena, before
5 filing its motion to dismiss, failed to comply with the meet-and-
6 confer obligations of Local Rule 7-3. Objections at 5-6. The
7 Court agrees with the Report that, despite non-compliance with the
8 rule, consideration of the motion was a proper exercise of
9 discretion. Report at 9-10. Plaintiffs cannot be absolved of all
10 blame for the failure to meet and confer, given their admitted
11 delay of several days in retrieving or listening to defense
12 counsel’s voicemail about his plan to file the motion. Report at
13 9 n.5; see also Doc. # 20 ¶¶ 3–4, Doc. # 21 ¶ 4. Moreover, no
14 prejudice to Plaintiffs is apparent from the failure to comply.
15 Report at 9.
16
17 Plaintiffs object that they have stated a claim for municipal
18 liability against the City under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
19 436 U.S. 658 (1978), based on Plaintiffs’ alleged lockout from
20 their unit on June 5, 2024. Objections at 7-10. In particular,
21 they allege that Officer Colon was present during a prior unlawful
22 exclusion on December 1, 2023, so that the “repeat involvement of
23 the same officer in multiple unconstitutional lockouts—without
24 apparent retraining or discipline—demonstrates the City of
25 Gardena’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline its
26 officers.” Id. at 10. Plaintiffs also appear to add new
27 allegations of wrongdoing by Officer Kwyn Boggs and Supervisor
28 Michael Hassoldt. Id. at 7. But Plaintiffs did not raise these
1 allegations in their First Amended Complaint, which raises a Monell
2 claim that is conclusory. Doc. # 1-1 at 3. The Court declines to
3 consider factual allegations raised for the first time in
4 objections to the Report. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
5 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (de novo review does not require
6 consideration of supplemental factual allegations that were not
7 presented to the Magistrate Judge). As the Report directed,
8 “[i]nstead, Plaintiffs may seek to clarify their claims in any
9 Second Amended Complaint they file.” Report at 13 n.9.
10
11 Plaintiffs object that they have stated a Monell claim against
12 the City based on an alleged warrantless entry and seizure at their
13 unit on December 1, 2023. Objections at 11-15. In particular,
14 they allege that this was not an isolated event, given that Officer
15 Colon actively participated in another illegal eviction on June 5,
16 2024, which “followed a nearly identical pattern.” Id. at 13.
17 This alleged pattern was not raised in the civil rights claims in
18 the First Amended Complaint. Doc. # 1-1 at 3, 5. As the Report
19 directed, Plaintiffs may seek to clarify their claims in any Second
20 Amended Complaint they file. Report at 13 n.9.
21
22 Plaintiffs object that they have stated a Monell claim against
23 the City based on incidents from July 13 to 14, 2024, which
24 allegedly reflected a pattern of unconstitutional conduct.
25 Objections at 15-19. The incidents allegedly involved the police’s
26 failure to enforce the law against a person who had criminally
27 trespassed into Plaintiffs’ unit, as well as a watch commander’s
28 alleged retaliatory threat of citation against Plaintiffs for
1 reporting the trespass. Id. Plaintiffs’ allegations about these
2 incidents were not raised in their First Amended Complaint. Doc.
3 # 1-1 at 3. Plaintiffs may seek to clarify their claims in any
4 Second Amended Complaint they file. Report at 13 n.9.
5
6 Plaintiffs object that they have properly complied with
7 California’s Government Claims Act for their state law claims.
8 Objections at 20-22. This objection is not responsive to the
9 Report, which found that, “having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal
10 claims, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over these
11 supplemental state claims, which should be dismissed without
12 prejudice.” Report at 16.
13
14 Plaintiffs object that they have stated a Monell claim based
15 on the City’s alleged knowledge that the building was condemned
16 and uninhabitable and its permission to the landlord to continue
17 leasing it. Objections 29 at 22-27. These allegations were not
18 raised in the Monell claim in the First Amended Complaint. Doc. #
19 1-1 at 3. Plaintiffs may seek to clarify their claims in any
20 Second Amended Complaint they file. Report at 13 n.9.
21
22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
23 the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the
24 Report to which Objections were directed. Having completed its
25 review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set
26 forth in the Report. In sum, Plaintiffs’ Objections do not cause
27 the Court to reconsider its decision to accept the Magistrate
28 Judge’s conclusions and recommendations.
1 IT IS ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice
2 || is DENIED; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; (3) the
3 First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; (A)
4 || Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint no later
5 || than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order; and (5)
6 || Plaintiffs are notified that failure to file a Second Amended
7 || Complaint will result in the dismissal of their federal claims,
8 |} with prejudice, against Defendants.
9
10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this
11 || Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on
12 || Plaintiffs.
13
14 DATED: January 14, 2026
15
16 Kelly, Jn, hw
DOLLY M. GEE
17 CHIEF UN®TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28