Mark Trujillo, et al. v. City of Chandler, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Mark T rujillo, et al., ) No. CV-25-00706-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) City of Chandler, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Defendants. ) ) 14 )

15 Before the Court is Defendants’ Buenrostro, Diaz, and City of Chandler’s Partial 16 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 31), Plaintiffs’ Response 17 (Doc. 37), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 41), as well as Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Citation 18 of Authority (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ 19 Motion.1 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs Mark and Alba Trujillo, on behalf of themselves and their three minor 22 children, bring various claims against Defendants connected to the shooting of Plaintiff 23 Mark Trujillo. (Doc. 29 at 2). On March 3, 2024, Plaintiff Mark Trujillo contacted the 24 Chandler Police Department to notify them that “an unstable next-door neighbor Luciano 25 Gutierrez” had been threatening one of Trujillo’s daughters. (Id. ¶ 1). Defendant Officer 26

27 1 Because it would not assist in resolution of the instant issues, the Court finds the pending motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f); Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 Nicholas Buenrostro and Defendant Officer-In-Training Margaret Diaz (collectively, 2 “Defendant Officers”) reported to the scene with other Chandler Police Department 3 officers. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3). 4 Plaintiff Mr. Trujillo was outside his home as the officers attempted to communicate 5 with Gutierrez. (Id. ¶ 4). “As Gutierrez appeared in his doorway, other officers (besides 6 Buenrostro and Diaz) fired multiple shots at Gutierrez, hitting and knocking him to the 7 ground.” (Id. ¶ 5). Mr. Trujillo began to “hurry across the driveway towards his home as 8 the gunshots ran out.” (Id. ¶ 6). As Mr. Trujillo crossed his driveway, Officer Buenrostro— 9 who had parked down the street several houses away with Officer Diaz—fired a shot at 10 Mr. Trujillo that severed his spinal cord. (Id. ¶ 8). This spinal cord injury paralyzed Mr. 11 Trujillo, and he “will be paraplegic for the rest of his life.” (Id. at 11, ¶ 79). 12 Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Officers Buenrostro and Diaz had an obligation to 13 confirm whether it was safe to shoot before doing so and to confirm the identity of the 14 target before shooting Mr. Trujillo. (Id. at 4). Their alleged failure to meet these obligations 15 gives rise to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and tort claims under state statutory and 16 common law. (See generally Doc. 29). Plaintiffs also assert that Defendant City of 17 Chandler (“Defendant Chandler”) is vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the 18 Defendant Officers. (Id. at 9–12). 19 On February 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the present suit. (Doc. 1). On March 25, 2025, 20 Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), and the Court granted Defendants’ 21 Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) with leave to amend to the claims. (Doc. 27). On 22 September 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). 23 (Doc. 29). The SAC brings five claims: (1) Negligence/Gross Negligence against 24 Defendant Officer Diaz and vicarious liability against the City; (2) Assault and/or Battery 25 against the Officer Defendants and vicarious liability against the City; (3) Loss of 26 Consortium against Defendant Diaz and vicarious liability against the City; (4) 27 Unreasonable Seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment against the Officer 28 Defendants; (5) Loss of Family Relationship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 1 against the Officer Defendants. (Id. at 9–14). 2 In Response to the SAC, Defendant Buenrostro filed a Partial Answer to the Battery 3 claim in Count Two and the Fourth Amendment claim in Count Four. (Doc. 30). 4 Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss the rest of the claims in the SAC (Doc. 31), 5 which is fully briefed. (Docs. 37, 41, 42). 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must 8 meet the requirements of Rule 8.” Jones v. Mohave Cnty., No. CV 11-8093-PCT-JAT, 9 2012 WL 79882, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 11, 2012). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain 10 “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12 12(b)(6) for two reasons: “(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts 13 under a cognizable legal claim.” In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 97 F.4th 634, 14 641 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted). A claim is facially plausible when it contains 15 “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference” that the moving 16 party is liable. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Factual allegations in the 17 complaint should be assumed true, and a court should then “determine whether they 18 plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. Facts should be viewed “in the 19 light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 20 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). “Nonetheless, the Court does not have to accept as true a legal 21 conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Jones, 2012 WL 79882, at *1 (citing Papasan 22 v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 The parties do not dispute the Court’s consideration of extrinsic evidence. (See 25 Docs. 29, 31, 37). The Court already addressed this issue in its August 27, 2025 Order. 26 (Doc. 27 at 3–5). The Court will consider extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties in 27 accordance with that Order, and only to the extent that it is relevant to the analysis here. 28 /// 1 A. Count One: Negligence/Gross Negligence 2 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Negligence/Gross Negligence claim against 3 Defendant Officer Diaz, and the vicarious liability claim against the City, fail under 4 Arizona law. (Doc. 31 at 7–10). In Response, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Officer Diaz 5 “had the duty to intervene to protect [Plaintiff Mark Trujillo] 6 and “[h]er omissions resulted in [Plaintiff Mark Trujillo’s] injury.” (Doc. 37 at 11). 7 As the Court explained in its previous Order, the Arizona Supreme Court has held 8 that negligence claims cannot be based solely on an officer’s intentional use of force. See 9 Ryan v. Napier, 425 P.3d 230, 233 (2018). Specifically, this Court previously explained 10 that Plaintiffs cannot proceed on a negligence claim against Defendant Diaz based on her 11 alleged conduct of allowing Buenrostro to fire. (Doc. 27 at 7). Again, the Court is not aware 12 of any authority allowing a plaintiff to bring a negligence claim based on one officer’s 13 alleged failure to intervene with another officer’s conduct. 14 That is exactly the kind of claim Plaintiffs appear to allege here. The SAC alleges: 15 “By allowing Buenrostro to fire, Diaz was also negligent and/or grossly negligent in 16 working the scene and failed in her duty to protect [Mr. Trujillo], a victim of the 17 unreasonable force used by Buenrostro.” (Doc. 29 at 10, ¶ 67). The SAC cites to 18 Gaudreault v. Municipality of Salem, Mass., 923 F.2d 203, 207 n.3 (1st Cir. 1990) and 19 O’Niell v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9, 11 (2d Cir. 1988). Gaudreault states that a police officer 20 “who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of 21 another officer’s use of excessive force can be held liable under section 1983 for his 22 nonfeasance.” 923 F.2d at 207 n.3. O’Neill similarly states that a law enforcement officer 23 “has an affirmative duty to intercede” in the context of excessive force claims. 839 F.2d at 24 11. In the Response, Plaintiffs appear to argue that Defendant Diaz “had the duty to 25 intervene” under Arizona law based on the law stating that an officer may be liable for 26 failure to intervene under Section 1983. (Doc. 37 at 11 (citing Byrd v. Brishke, 466 F.2d 6, 27 11 (7th Cir. 1972)). The authority Plaintiffs offer in support of their negligence claim 28 against Defendant Diaz is based on law concerning excessive force and Section 1983. That 1 law does not support a negligence claim. 2 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Defendant 3 Diaz was negligent, Defendant Chandler cannot be held vicariously liable. Laurence v. Salt 4 River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 528 P.3d 139, 150 (Ariz. 2023) 5 (“Dismissing a tort claim against an employee because the claim lacks merit requires the 6 court to also dismiss a claim against an employer under the doctrine of respondeat 7 superior.”). Therefore, the negligence claims against both Defendant Diaz and Defendant 8 Chandler will be dismissed without leave to amend. 9 B. Count Two: Assault/Battery 10 Next, Defendants argue that the claims in Count Two fail as to Defendant Diaz and 11 Defendant Chandler. (Doc. 31 at 10–12). In Count Two of the SAC, Plaintiffs bring claims 12 for Assault and/or Battery against the Defendant Officers. (Doc. 29 at 10–11). However, 13 the only allegations under Count Two as to Defendant Diaz are for aiding and abetting 14 Defendant Buenrostro. (Id. ¶ 73). “A claim for aiding and abetting a tort requires proof that 15 (1) the primary tortfeasor has committed a tort causing injury to the plaintiff; (2) the 16 defendant knew the primary tortfeasor breached a duty; (3) the defendant substantially 17 assisted or encouraged the primary tortfeasor in the breach; and (4) a causal relationship 18 exists between the assistance or encouragement and [the] breach.” Sec. Title Agency, Inc. 19 v. Pope, 200 P.3d 977, 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing the third prong, that 21 Defendant Diaz substantially assisted or encouraged Defendant Buenrostro in shooting Mr. 22 Trujillo. (Doc. 31 at 11). In response, Plaintiffs argue that the third prong “can be inferred 23 by the jury because Diaz’s lack of action or statement . . . implies she encouraged” 24 Defendant Buenrostro’s actions. (Doc. 37 at 13). In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that 25 Defendant Diaz, “took no steps to assist Buenrostro,” “took no steps to stop Buenrostro,” 26 and “took no steps to clarify the actual suspect,” despite expressing “concerns about the 27 potential of shooting an innocent man.” (Doc. 29 at 6, ¶¶ 37–39). The SAC also alleges 28 that Defendant Diaz asked Defendant Buenrostro “who was the suspect more than once.” 1 (Id. ¶ 34). In sum, Plaintiffs describe Defendant Diaz’s participation in the incident as 2 follows: “Though she purported to be observing the scene, Officer Diaz did nothing 3 whatsoever to stop Officer Buenrostro from shooting and paralyzing [Mr. Trujillo] and did 4 nothing whatsoever to assist Officer Buenrostro in confirming that he was aiming at the 5 wrong person.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 26). 6 The Court agrees with Defendants that these allegations do not plausibly state a 7 claim for aiding and abetting a tort. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Diaz knew that 8 Defendant Buenrostro breached a duty or that she assisted or encouraged him in any way. 9 Instead, the allegations in the SAC describe that Defendant Diaz was concerned and 10 questioned whether Defendant Buenrostro was shooting the right person. The allegation 11 that she “did nothing whatsoever” does not amount to aiding and abetting. (See id.). The 12 Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that such conduct could be inferred by the jury 13 and need not be alleged on the face of the complaint. Therefore, the claim in Count Two 14 against Defendant Diaz will be dismissed without leave to amend. 15 As to the claim in Count Two against Defendant Chandler, Defendants argue that 16 the City cannot be held vicariously liable for Defendant Buenrostro’s alleged battery for 17 the reasons the Court recognized in its August 27, 2025 Order. (Doc. 31 at 11–12; see Doc. 18 27). Plaintiffs do not dispute this argument in their Response. (Doc. 37). The Court 19 explained in its previous Order that, for a public entity to be liable for an employee’s 20 intentional use of force, it must actually know of the employee’s propensity to commit that 21 particular act. Harris v. Phoenix, No. CV-20-00078-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 4942662, at *1 22 (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2021); A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B). The SAC once again does not allege that 23 Defendant Buenrostro had a propensity for this conduct or that Defendant Chandler had 24 any knowledge about such a propensity. (See Doc. 29). The Court will also dismiss the 25 claim in Count Two against the City of Chandler without leave to amend. 26 C. Count Three: Loss of Consortium 27 In Count Three, Plaintiffs bring a loss of consortium claim against Defendant Diaz 28 and Defendant Chandler. (Doc. 29 at 11–12). “An individual may make a claim for loss of 1 consortium against a tortfeasor whose conduct caused the claimant to lose ‘society, 2 companionship, care, support, and affection’ within a marital or parent-child relationship.” 3 Martin v. Staheli, 457 P.3d 53, 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). In Arizona, “[l]oss of consortium 4 is a derivative claim, which means that the success of a loss-of-consortium claim is 5 dependent on the success of another claim.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Defendants are 6 correct that the loss of consortium claim should be dismissed against Defendant Diaz 7 because the other claims against her will be dismissed. See Gagne v. City of Mesa, CV-24- 8 01337-PHX-SHD, 2025 WL 2257508, at *13 (D. Ariz. Aug. 6, 2025). Therefore, the 9 vicarious liability claim against Defendant Chandler also fails. Count Three will be 10 dismissed without leave to amend. 11 D. Count Four: Unreasonable Seizure 12 In Count Four, Plaintiffs bring a claim for Unreasonable Seizure in violation of the 13 Fourth Amendment against the Officer Defendants. As to Defendant Diaz, Plaintiffs allege 14 that as a result of her “failure to intervene, she, too, caused unconstitutional injuries.” (Doc. 15 29 at 12, ¶ 88).2 Plaintiffs allege that “she may also be liable as an integral participant.” 16 (Id. at 6, ¶ 32(C)) (quotations and citation omitted). 17 “[A]n official whose ‘individual actions’ do ‘not themselves rise to the level of a 18 constitutional violation’ may be held liable under section 1983 only if the official is an 19 ‘integral participant’ in the unlawful act.” Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 889 (9th Cir. 20 2022) (citing Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner, 969 F.3d 930, 941 (9th Cir. 2020)). Liability 21 as an integral participant may arise “in two situations: those in which (1) the defendant 22 knows about and acquiesces in the constitutionally defective conduct as part of a common 23 plan with those whose conduct constitutes the violation or (2) the defendant ‘set[s] in 24 motion a series of acts by others which [the defendant] knows or reasonably should know 25 would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id. (citing Johnson v. Duffy, 588

26 2 Plaintiffs also argue in the Response that Defendant Diaz is “separately liable for 27 failing to intervene to protect [Mr. Trujillo’s] rights.” (Doc. 37 at 6). Despite these arguments, Plaintiffs do not bring a Failure to Intervene claim against Defendant Diaz in 28 the SAC. (See Doc. 29). 1 F.2d 740, 743–44 (9th Cir. 1978)). 2 Defendants argue that the claim against Defendant Diaz in Count Four should be 3 dismissed because “she was simply present at the scene”; she did not act as part of a 4 common plan nor did she set in motion a series of acts that ultimately ended in the shooting. 5 (Doc. 31 at 14). On the other hand, Plaintiffs argue that under the integral participant 6 theory, Defendant Diaz “was an ‘integral participant’ in identifying the man to shoot—and 7 she, like Buenrostro, failed miserably at making that identification.” (Doc. 37 at 9). The 8 allegations in the SAC do not show that Defendant Diaz knew about and acquiesced to a 9 plan to shoot Mr. Trujillo. Instead, the facts show that Defendant Diaz asked who the 10 suspect was, told Defendant Buenrostro that she was tracking the suspect, and asked 11 questions indicating a concern about the use of deadly force on an innocent person. (Doc. 12 29 at 6). Another officer may be liable as an integral participant if they were “aware of the 13 decision” to engage in unconstitutional conduct and “did not object to it.” Peck, 51 F.4th 14 at 889. But here, Defendant Diaz’s conduct indicates concern and questioning, not 15 awareness and acquiescence. Although Defendant Diaz was more involved than an officer 16 who was “simply being present at the scene,” the allegations do not plausibly allege that 17 she was aware that Defendant Buenrostro was going to shoot the wrong person. Plaintiffs 18 also do not allege that Defendant Diaz initiated a series of acts that she reasonably should 19 have known would cause the constitutional violation to occur. Rather, the facts allege 20 “bumbling inaction” on the part of Defendant Diaz. (See Doc. 29 at 6). 21 Because Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that Defendant Diaz was an 22 integral participant in the alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the claim in Count Four 23 against Defendant Diaz will be dismissed without leave to amend. 24 E. Count Five: Loss of Family Relationship 25 In Count Five, Plaintiffs bring a claim for Loss of Family Relationship in violation 26 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Buenrostro and Diaz. (Doc. 29 at 12– 27 14). Defendants argue that the claims fail because “(1) Plaintiffs do not plead the required 28 purpose to harm standard, (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on any claim 1 brought by Alba Trujillo, and (3) the SAC fails to plead specific facts as to the children’s 2 loss of family relationship.” (Doc. 31 at 15). 3 The Fourteenth Amendment “right to family or to familial association is well 4 established.” Branum v. City of Phoenix, CV 21-00357-TUC-RM, 2022 WL 20741828, at 5 *3 (D. Ariz. July 1, 2022) (citing Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th 6 Cir. 2011)). This right is clearly recognized for the parent-child relationship. See Curnow 7 v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 325 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546, 8 554 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the Ninth Circuit has not explicitly recognized or foreclosed 9 the availability of such a claim for spouses. Branum, 2022 WL 20741828, at *3 (discussing 10 lack of Ninth Circuit precedent and collecting district court cases recognizing spousal 11 claims to familial association); see also Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 893 (9th Cir. 2022) 12 (noting that the Ninth Circuit has not previously held whether a substantive due process 13 right exists for spouses and declining to consider the issue as the familial-association claim 14 failed on other grounds). However, the Court again finds it unnecessary to determine 15 whether a loss of familial association claim is available to spouses at this time, as Plaintiffs’ 16 claim fails on other grounds. 17 In order for official conduct to violate a parent’s due process rights, the conduct 18 must “shock[] the conscience.” Porter v. Osborn, 546 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). 19 Courts consider the facts of the case in order to determine if an officer’s conduct meets the 20 “shocks the conscience” standard. Id. In urgent, emergency situations that necessitate “fast 21 action” and involve “competing public safety obligations,” a plaintiff must show that an 22 official acted with a “purpose to harm” for reasons other than legitimate law enforcement 23 objectives to meet the “shocks the conscience” standard. Id. at 1137–39; see also Moreland 24 v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 372 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Nov. 25 24, 1998) (finding purpose to harm standard appropriate when police responded to a 26 gunfight in a large crowd because it was an extreme emergency); Peck, 51 F.4th at 893 27 (“We apply the purpose-to-harm standard when officials were required to make ‘repeated 28 split-second decisions’ about how best to respond to a risk, such as during a high-speed car 1 chase or when confronting a threatening, armed suspect.”). Alternatively, an official’s 2 “deliberate indifference” may violate a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment rights under 3 certain circumstances. Porter, 546 F.3d at 1137. For instance, deliberate indifference may 4 rise to the level of shocking the conscience in situations where officers had extended 5 opportunities for actual deliberation and still engaged in unconstitutional conduct. Id. at 6 1137–39. This standard is appropriate “when officials had ‘ample time to correct their 7 obviously [wrongful conduct],’ such as in Eighth Amendment prisoner-treatment cases or 8 in wrongful-detention cases.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 893 (citing Porter, 546 F.3d at 1139). 9 In the August 27, 2025 Order, the Court determined that the purpose-to-harm 10 standard applies to the facts at issue here because they reflect an emergent situation. (Doc. 11 27 at 14). Based on the facts alleged in the SAC, that determination still applies. Even 12 though Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants Buenrostro and Diaz had ample time to positively 13 identify the suspect before taking the shot,” the circumstances do not reflect an extended 14 opportunity for reflection and action. (Doc. 29 at 14). Rather, the facts show that the 15 officers made fast-paced decisions “when confronting a threatening” suspect. Peck, 51 16 F.4th at 893. 17 Under the purpose-to-harm standard, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acted 18 with a purpose to harm that was “unrelated to legitimate law enforcement objectives.” 19 Porter, 546 F.3d at 1137. Conduct such as purely reactive decision-making or responding 20 to an emergency weighs against a purpose to harm finding. See id. at 1140. Instead, a 21 plaintiff must show that an officer’s intention was “to cause harm unrelated to the 22 legitimate object of arrest,” “induce . . . lawlessness, or to terrorize, cause harm, or kill,” 23 or to “teach [the suspect] a lesson” or “get even.” Id. (citations omitted). Absent evidence 24 of such intentions or evidence that an “officer’s reaction was driven by anything other than 25 his ‘instinct … to do his job as a law enforcement officer,’” an officer will not be liable 26 under the purpose to harm standard, even if the officer misperceived danger or “acted 27 irresponsibly.” Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lewis, 523 28 U.S. at 855). 1 In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Buenrostro and Diaz’s “acts and/or 2 omissions exhibited a deliberate indifference and therefore shock the conscience.” (Doc. 3 29 at 13, ¶ 96). Plaintiffs do not argue that the conduct meets the purpose-to-harm standard. 4 (See id.). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Diaz and Buenrostro were on the scene for seven 5 and a half minutes and failed to positively identify the suspect. (Id. at 13). Meanwhile, the 6 other officers radioed that they had shot the subject, and after five seconds of “absolute 7 silence,” Defendant Buenrostro fired the shot at Mr. Trujillo. (Id. at 14). Plaintiffs allege 8 that these acts were “willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,” but there are no facts to 9 support these conclusory allegations. Indeed, the facts do not indicate that the Officer 10 Defendants acted with any intention other than carrying out their law enforcement 11 objectives. See Porter, 546 F.3d at 1137. Because the SAC does not plausibly allege that 12 Defendants acted with purpose to harm, Count Five will be dismissed without leave to 13 amend. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 All told, “whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context- 16 specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and 17 common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. As to the claims addressed in this Order, Plaintiffs 18 have failed to allege enough facts to “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. 19 Therefore, the following claims will be dismissed: Count One, Count Two as to Defendant 20 Diaz and Defendant Chandler, Count Three, Count Four as to Defendant Diaz, and Count 21 Five. 22 A district court should normally grant leave to amend unless it determines that the 23 pleading could not possibly be cured by allegations of other facts. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe 24 v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). This is Plaintiffs’ Second 25 Amended Complaint. (See Docs. 1, 8, 29). Plaintiffs were already granted leave to amend 26 to address deficiencies relating to the negligence claim in Count One, the vicarious liability 27 claim in Count Two, the loss of consortium claim in Count Three, the Fourth Amendment 28 unreasonable seizure claim in Count Four, and Fourteenth Amendment loss of family 1 | relationship in Count Five. (See Doc. 27). The SAC fails to cure the deficiencies previously 2| identified. Further, the Court finds that additional facts would not cure the defects in the 3 | aiding and abetting assault claim against Defendant Diaz. The facts supporting that claim 4| are the same as those behind the negligence claims and the Fourth Amendment claims. All of those claims fail as a matter of law and leave to amend would not change that outcome. Plaintiffs have already been granted leave to amend; the Court will decline to do so again. 7 | See Ecological Rights Found. V. Pac. Gas and Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502, 520 (9th Cir. 2013) 8 | (‘[T]he court’s discretion to deny such leave is ‘particularly broad’ where the plaintiff has 9 | previously amended [the] complaint.”) (citation omitted). 10 Therefore, the claims discussed in this Order will be denied without leave to amend. 11 | The only remaining claims are Count Two and Count Four, as to Defendant Buenrostro. 12| (See Doc. 30). 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) 1s granted. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims in Count One, Count Two as 16 | to Defendant Diaz and Defendant Chandler, Count Three, Count Four as to Defendant Diaz, and Count Five are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate Defendant 19 | Margaret Diaz and Defendant City of Chandler as parties to this action. 20 Dated this 30th day of April, 2026. 21

73 United States District hidge 24 25 26 27 28