Opinion
Case No. CV 15-1008-JLS (KES)
10-30-2015
HAROUT BAGDASARYAN, MASIS BAGDASARYAN, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by Plaintiffs. Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiffs Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiffs objected. The Court hereby approves and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend limited as follows:
The following claims are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend :
(1) Facial challenges to the constitutionality of Ordinance 181033;
(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (including "Monell claims") against the City;
(3) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against any individual defendants arising out of the 2011 inspections at 6908 Shadygrove Street;
(4) RICO and RICO conspiracy claims against the City;
(5) Punitive damage claims against the City;
(6) Elder abuse claims by Harout Bagdasaryan.
All of Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed with leave to amend , subject to the following limitations:
(1) RICO and RICO conspiracy claims may be re-pleaded only against individual defendants;
(2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims may be re-pleaded only against individual defendants;
(3) Substantive Due Process claims against the City to recover fees paid or invalidate pending invoices may be re-pleaded limited to Plaintiffs' allegations that City inspectors demanded payment of fabricated invoices;
(4) Procedural Due Process claims against the City to recover fees paid or invalidate pending invoices may be re-pleaded limited to Plaintiffs' allegations that they were billed for late charges that accrued during months when Plaintiffs lacked notice that their tenant had failed to pay;
(5) Plaintiffs shall allege sufficient facts to establish their standing to assert all claims they allege.
If Plaintiffs wish to pursue the above-noted claims, Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint shall be limited as described above and shall be due within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order.
The Third Amended Complaint should bear the docket number assigned in this case, be labeled "Third Amended Complaint," and be complete in and of itself without reference to the original Complaint, the FAC, the SAC or any other pleading or documents, other than those attached to it as exhibits. Plaintiffs may serve the Third Amended Complaint on the City by serving its counsel of record. If Plaintiffs elect to pursue claims against Inspector Jakeman, Plaintiffs will need to serve the Third Amended Complaint on him in a manner that satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and then file a proof of service declaration.
Dated: October 30, 2015
/s/_________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
United States District Judge