KATHRYN R. WADE, et al. v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KATHRYN R. WADE, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03200-CRB

9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING 10 v. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 11 CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiffs Katherine Wade, S.B., China Young, Adrian Arroyo, and Brandon Lopez 14 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action against Officers Jacob Ewart, Michael 15 Mellone, Morteza Amiri, Eric Allen Rombough, Devon Wenger, Joshua Evans, Jimmy 16 Wisecarver, Kelly Inabnett, James Stenger, Aaron Hughes, and James Colley (collectively, 17 “Defendants”) in their individual capacities, alleging that they carried out a 18 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate residents of 19 Antioch, California by engaging “in a repeated pattern and practice of civil rights 20 violations and other misconduct.” SAC (dkt. 28) ¶ 26. Defendants move to dismiss 21 Plaintiffs’ sole claim. Mot. (dkt. 30). Because Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the 22 applicable two-year statute of limitations, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 23 dismiss. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 A. Factual Background 26 1. Plaintiffs Katherine Wade and S.B. 27 Plaintiffs Katherine Wade and S.B. allege that their family member, Malad 1 about police misconduct. SAC ¶¶ 27–50. They allege that Defendants and other Antioch 2 police officers attacked and beat Baldwin several times between 2019 and 2020. Id. ¶¶ 29, 3 30–31. And in 2020, Defendants even refused to seek medical assistance for Baldwin. 4 Id. ¶¶ 37–38. On March 11, 2021, Baldwin became very ill, and Wade called 911, 5 requesting that dispatch not send any police officers. Id. ¶ 39–40. However, soon after the 6 Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”) arrived, Defendants Ewart and Mellone and 7 other police officers entered the house without a warrant or consent. Id. ¶¶ 41–42. After 8 the EMTs removed Baldwin from the house, Wade noticed that Antioch police were 9 rummaging through her and her son’s belongings. Id. ¶¶ 44–46. Wade then demanded 10 that the officers leave, but they continued to search her home. Id. ¶ 47. Baldwin died at 11 the hospital two days later. Id. Wade and S.B. allege that Defendants Ewart and Mellone, 12 acted in a conspiracy with the other defendants to commit these acts. Id. ¶ 53. 13 2. Plaintiff China Young 14 Plaintiff China Young alleges that on October 20, 2019, Defendant Wenger took her 15 into custody without warning, grabbed her, punched her, and slammed the back of her 16 head into a parked car. SAC ¶ 54. Young alleges that Wenger acted in a conspiracy with 17 the other defendants to commit this act. Id. ¶ 55. 18 3. Plaintiff Adrian Arroyo 19 Plaintiff Adrian Arroyo alleges that in the early morning of July 24, 2019, 20 Defendant Amiri initiated a traffic stop, punched him multiple times, and that Amiri’s K9 21 bit and injured him. SAC ¶¶ 57–58. Amiri allegedly sent descriptions and photos of the 22 bite to fellow officers, including Defendant Rombough, and joked about the incident. 23 Id. ¶¶ 59–65. Arroyo alleges that Defendant Amiri acted in a conspiracy with the other 24 defendants to commit this act. Id. ¶ 67. 25 4. Plaintiff Brandon Lopez 26 Plaintiff Brandon Lopez alleges that he was arrested sometime in November of 27 2020 because of fabricated evidence provided by Defendant Rombough in his police 1 reviewed and vacated at the request of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office. 2 Id. ¶¶ 69–70. Lopez alleges that Defendant Rombough acted in a conspiracy with the 3 other defendants to commit this act. Id. ¶¶ 68, 71. 4 5. Investigation Findings 5 The Contra Costa County and the FBI launched an investigation into the Antioch 6 Police Department and, upon releasing their findings to the public, they disclosed racist 7 text messages between Antioch Police officers related to previous civil rights abuses. 8 SAC ¶¶ 51–52, 60–65. In these private messages, some of the defendants joked about 9 their excessive use of force against Baldwin, Wade’s son. Id. ¶¶ 51–52. In other 10 messages, another group of defendants joked about the K-9 biting Arroyo. Id. ¶¶ 59–67. 11 Plaintiffs allege that they first learned that Defendants were acting in conspiracy to 12 injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Antioch residents on April 13, 2023, the day of the 13 release. Id. ¶¶ 51–53. 14 B. Procedural History 15 Plaintiff Wade, brought this action on April 9, 2025, suing several Antioch police 16 officers. See Compl. (dkt. 1). On October 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a second amended 17 complaint and alleged that Defendants perpetrated a Section 1985 conspiracy to violate 18 civil rights. SAC ¶ 72. 19 Plaintiff Wade had filed a similar lawsuit in 2023 against the City of Antioch, 20 Defendant Mellone, and Defendant Ewart, alleging Section 1981 and 1983 violations. 21 Mot. at 3. The 2023 lawsuit arose from the same incidents between her son and the 22 Antioch police described in this case. See Mot., Ex. C ¶¶ 25–52 (complaint in Wade v. 23 Antioch Police Department et al., 4:23-cv-01130 (N.D. Cal 2023), alleging the same series 24 of injuries);1 SAC ¶¶ 27–52 (describing almost verbatim the same set of factual allegations 25 26 1 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for judicial notice of exhibits submitted along with their motion. Dkt. 30-2. The exhibits are in the public record and the Court may take judicial 27 notice of documents that are “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they (1) are “generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction,” or (2) “can be accurately and readily 1 and incidents of Wade’s initial action). Defendants allege that Plaintiff Wade signed a 2 Release and Settlement Agreement (“RSA”) on December 26, 2024, releasing Defendants 3 Ewart, Mellone, and Antioch’s current and former officers, agents, and employees from all 4 known or unknown claims arising out of the same incidents. See Mot., Ex. I at 4–5. After 5 Wade signed the RSA, the case was dismissed with prejudice on December 30, 2024. Id. 6 Defendants now move to dismiss. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9 tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in a complaint. Illeto v. Glock, Inc., 349 10 F.3d 1191, 1199–1200 (9th Cir. 2003). A complaint must contain a “short and plain 11 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 8(a)(2). “Detailed factual allegations” are not required, but plaintiffs must offer sufficient 13 factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Com. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 15 544, 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 16 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 17 misconduct alleged.” Id. A court “must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to 18 be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Usher v. City 19 of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 2001). A court need not, however, “accept as 20 true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 21 “A claim may be dismissed as untimely pursuant to a 12(b)(6) motion only when 22 the running of the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of the complaint.” United 23 States ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus., Ins., 720 F.3d 1174, 1178 24 (9th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim should be 27 1 dismissed because Plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 2 Mot. at 9. For the reasons below, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim as time-barred. 3 While Section 1985 does not include a statute of limitations, conspiracy suits under 4 the provision are governed by the same statute of limitations as actions under Section 5 1983. McDougal v. Cnty of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673–74 (9th Cir. 1991). Section 1983 6 actions are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. 7 Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). California has a two-year statute of 8 limitations for such personal injury actions. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. 9 While state law sets the applicable statute of limitations, federal law determines 10 when a civil rights claim accrues. Morales v. Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153–54 (9th 11 Cir. 2000). A claim accrues when the plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury 12 which is the basis of the action.” TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 A plaintiff has knowledge “upon awareness of the actual injury . . . and not when the 14 plaintiff suspects a legal wrong.” Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 15 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the notion that knowledge 16 requires both knowledge of the “actual injury” and the “legal wrong,” such as racial 17 discrimination. See id. at 1048–51. 18 For Section 1985(3) claims, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the 19 last act alleged “from which damage could have flowed.” Lambert v. Conrad, 308 F.2d 20 571, 571 (9th Cir. 1962). The conspirators must have committed or caused “any act in 21 furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby [the plaintiff] was injured in his 22 person or property or deprived of [any right or privilege].” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 23 U.S. 88, 103 (1971) (internal citation omitted). The act must be committed “pursuant to 24 the conspiracy” and “during its course.” Hoffman v. Halden, 286 F.2d 280, 295 (9th Cir. 25 1959), overruled in part on other grounds by Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1962). 26 Critically, plaintiffs must allege a specific act occurring within the statutory period; they 27 cannot rely on a “general allegation that the conspiracy continued to a date within the 1 Here, accrual is measured from the date of Plaintiffs’ last alleged injury because, on 2 that date, all Plaintiffs “knew or had reason to know of the[ir] injury.” See TwoRivers, 3 174 F.3d at 991. The most recent alleged injury took place on March 11, 2021, when the 4 police, including Defendants Ewart and Mellone, searched Wade’s home. SAC ¶¶ 42–48. 5 All other injuries predate March 11, 2021 and, by this date, all Plaintiffs knew of their 6 respective injuries that form the basis of this action. See id. ¶¶ 54, 57, 69. Indeed, “at this 7 point, [Plaintiffs] knew they had been injured and by whom . . . even if at that point in time 8 [Plaintiffs] did not know of the legal injury, i.e., that there was an allegedly discriminatory 9 motive underlying” the actual injury. See Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1051. Accordingly, to 10 comply with the two-year statute of limitations, Plaintiffs should have filed by March 11, 11 2023. They did not. Since Plaintiffs first filed on April 9, 2025, the statute of limitations 12 bars their conspiracy claim. See Compl. 13 To avoid this outcome, Plaintiffs allege that they had no knowledge of Defendants’ 14 conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate” them until April 13, 2023, when 15 the Contra Costa District Attorney released the text messages between Defendants—sent 16 in July 2019 and June 2020—in which they joked about the incidents involving Plaintiffs. 17 SAC ¶¶ 51, 57–65, 78, 81, 84, 87. That is of no consequence. Knowledge of the “actual 18 injury”—i.e. searching a home without a warrant—is enough for Plaintiffs’ claim to 19 accrue, even if they had not yet discovered the “legal wrong,” the conspiracy to racially 20 discriminate against Plaintiffs. See Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048–51. 21 Further, the relevant text messages predate Plaintiffs’ most recent injury, which 22 took place on March 11, 2021. SAC ¶¶ 42–48. And while these messages were released 23 to the public on April 13, 2023, discovering the existence of a conspiracy is not an act 24 committed during the “course” and “in furtherance” of the conspiracy that would trigger a 25 new injury. See Hoffman, 286 F.2d at 295; Griffin, 403 U.S. at 103. Consequently, the 26 statute of limitations still began to run on March 11, 2021, and Plaintiffs’ claim is 27 untimely. SAC. ¶¶ 39–48. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with 2 prejudice, as amendment would be futile. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2026 5 CHARLES’R. BREY 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

Zz 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28