Ruben Sanchez, et al. v. BDF Law Group, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN SANCHEZ, et al., Case No.: 3:25-cv-00870-CAB-AHG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE 14 BDF LAW GROUP, et al.,

15 Defendants.

17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiffs Ruben Sanchez and Liliana Sanchez’s Second 19 Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 6 (“SAC”).] For the reasons stated below, the Court 20 DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On April 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a single due process violation 23 against several defendants who were not state actors. [Doc. No. 1.] In that complaint, 24 Plaintiffs asserted federal question jurisdiction. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show why 25 this Court has jurisdiction since Plaintiffs failed to allege state action sustaining a 26 constitutional claim. [Doc. No. 3.] 27 Plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint which added the Attorney General of 28 California as a defendant. [Doc. No. 4.] The Court dismissed the first amended complaint 1 because (1) Plaintiffs added only a conclusory allegation that the Attorney General 2 discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origin, and (2) claims against the 3 Attorney General in his official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity. [Doc. No. 5.] 4 The Court gave Plaintiffs an additional, final opportunity to amend their complaint, 5 warning that if Plaintiffs continued to assert frivolous federal claims to manufacture 6 jurisdiction, the Court would dismiss this case with prejudice. [Id. at 2.] 7 On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the SAC naming Bird Rock Home Mortgage 8 (“BRHM”), Rob Bonta c/o Office of the Attorney General, Barrett Daffin (“Daffin”), San 9 Diego Sheriff’s Department, and Does 1–10 as defendants (together, “Defendants”). 10 [SAC.] Despite the Court’s prior warnings, Plaintiffs sued the Attorney General in his 11 official capacity. Plaintiffs also assert that BRHM and Daffin’s failure to offer a loan 12 modification or to comply with the California Homeowner Bill of Rights violated their 13 Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. [See SAC at 5–8.] BRHM appears to be a 14 private company, and Daffin appears to be a private individual; neither appears to be a state 15 actor. [See id.] 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiffs may not assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim solely against a private 18 individual or company absent state action. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 444 (9th 19 Cir. 2002) (“[P]laintiffs do not enjoy Fourteenth Amendment protections against ‘private 20 conduct abridging individual rights.’”). The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to 21 BRHM or Daffin’s alleged conduct, and this claim against BRHM and Daffin does not 22 present a cognizable federal question. 23 Plaintiffs also allege that the Office of the Attorney General violated their Fourteenth 24 Amendment due process rights by ignoring the complaint they filed with the Attorney 25 General. [SAC at 8.] Any claim for damages against the Attorney General or the Office 26 of the Attorney General is barred by sovereign immunity. See Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub. 27 Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for 28 money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in 1 their official capacities.”). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against the Office of 2 the Attorney General is barred by sovereign immunity. 3 Additionally, Plaintiffs cannot compel the attorney general to investigate or rescind 4 the foreclosure sale of their home. Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right that permits 5 them to force government officials to conduct investigations. See DeShaney v. Winnebago 6 Cnty. Dep’t Of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 196–197 (1989) (“[T]he Due Process Clauses 7 generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be 8 necessary to secure . . . property interests of which the government itself may not deprive 9 the individual.”); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (observing 10 that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or 11 nonprosecution of another”). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot assert a cause of action related to the 12 Attorney General’s purported failure to investigate. 13 In sum, Plaintiffs fail to establish federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also seek 14 an injunction against all Defendants from further violating the civil rights of the Plaintiffs 15 and an order requiring the San Diego Sheriff’s Department to rescind the lockout of 16 Plaintiffs from their former home. [SAC at 8.] However, a plaintiff seeking injunctive 17 relief must have an underlying cause of action on which to base such relief. See Shell Oil 18 Co. v. Richter, 52 Cal. App. 2d 164, 168 (1942) (“Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in 19 itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be 20 granted.”). Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish an underlying cause of action, their 21 injunctive claims also fail. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 The Court gave Plaintiffs multiple warnings and opportunities to amend, yet they 24 have repeatedly failed to properly plead subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court 25 may dismiss this case sua sponte. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(h)(3). Dismissal without leave to 26 amend is appropriate when the Court is satisfied that the deficiencies in the complaint could 27 not be cured by amendment. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003). 28 /// 1 || The Court therefore DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE. 2 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 3 Itis SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: July 9, 2026 € Z 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28