Jules Falcone v. City of Los Angeles

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-07736
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:24-cv-07736-JGB-AJR Date: October 1, 2024 Page 1 of 2

Title: Jules Falcone v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DIMISSED AS UNTIMELY (DKT. 1)

PRESENT:

HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_Claudia Garcia-Marquez_ _______None_______ __None__ Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) On September 5, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Jules Falcone (“Plaintiff”), filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Complaint”) against the following Defendants: (1) City of Los Angeles; (2) Los Angeles Police Department; (3) Captain Davila; (4) Officer Ruiz; (5) Officer Villegas; (6) Officer Robledos; (7) LAPD Internal Affairs Division; (8) Officer John Doe #1; (9) Officer John Doe #2; (10) Los Angeles Parking Enforcement; (11) Officer Contreras; (12) Officer John Doe Parking Enforcement #2; (13) the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department; (14) Alex Villanueva (Former Sherriff); (15) Deputy Veronica Fantom; (16) Brian Sam (City Attorney’s Office); and (17) Does 1 through 10. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise from the August 25, 2022 towing of her BMW. (See Dkt. 1 at 3 (“Parking Enforcement Officer Contreras marked the street and informed me that vehicles that did not move by the next morning would be towed . . . August 25, 2022 (11:25 a.m.): LAPD officers . . . arrived and towed UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:24-cv-07736-JGB-AJR Date: October 1, 2024 Page 2 of 2

my BMW despite my showing them paperwork I had just bought it from a police auction. I recorded the incident, accusing them of theft. The officers disregarded my protests and left with my car.”).) Plaintiff states that the legal issue that serves as the basis for her Section 1983 claim is the “[v]iolation of [her] Fourth Amendment right, as [her] car was towed without legal justification.” (Id.) Accordingly, it appears that the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claim began to run on August 25, 2022, and expired on August 25, 2024, two years after the towing of Plaintiff’s vehicle. See Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The statute of limitations relevant to [the plaintiff’s] § 1983 claims was California’s two-year limit for personal injuries.”); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (statute of limitations for § claims is forum state’s personal-injury statute of limitations; civil rights claim “accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis of the cause of action”); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (California statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years). However, Plaintiff did not file this action until September 5, 2024. (See Dkt. 1 at 1.)

Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause, no later than October 15, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff is advised that failure to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, or failure to show why this action is not time-barred, will result in the Court recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is further advised that if she no longer wishes to pursue this action or any particular defendant, she may voluntarily dismiss the action or certain defendants by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attachments: CV-09, Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or (c).