Angel Brown, et al. v. City of Gardena, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-06271
• Status: Unknown

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