Hogan v. Mohlenbrok

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RU HOGAN, No. 2:24-cv-03566-JAM-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants.

17 Before the Court is City of Rocklin’s (“Defendant”) motion to strike three causes of action in Ru Hogan’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See Mot., ECF No. 12.

20 Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a non-opposition to the motion.

23 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

24 California Code of Civil Procedure provides, “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). The protected conduct includes: “(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” Id. 425.16(e). “A defendant need only make a prima facie showing that plaintiff’s claims arise from the defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech or petition rights.” Optional Cap., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP, 18 Cal. App. 5th 95, 112 (2017). The California Supreme Court held, “If the defendant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success. We have described this second step as a ‘summary-judgment-like procedure.’” Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376, 384 (2016).

26 Here, Plaintiff’s allegations center around Defendant’s involvement in the enforcement of zoning code as it relates to her hens. To enforce the code, Defendant allegedly issued citations, processed Plaintiff’s requested accommodation, ordered Plaintiff to remove her hens, Defendant employee David Mohlenbrok communicated with third parties, and Officer Heather Rodgers testified at a hearing. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 4, 8-9, 12, 14, ECF No. 9. Defendant has demonstrated that this conduct is protected free speech under California Code of Civil Procedure. See Mot. at 12-13. Accordingly, Defendant has made “a prima facie showing” that Plaintiff’s claims arise from Defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech rights. See Optional Cap., Inc., 18 Cal. App. 5th at 112.

11 Because Defendant has made “the required showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by establishing a probability of success.” Baral, 1 Cal. 5th at 14 384. As an initial matter, because Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating a probability of success. Although the Court need go no further before granting the motion, its review of the specific claims reveal that Plaintiff does not have a probability of success. As Defendant explains, Defendant is immune from tort liability and thus the First and Fourth Causes of Action fail. See Mot. at 14- 16. Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Defendant demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot prevail because she was granted the accommodation she requested. See Mot. at 16-17. Thus, even if Plaintiff opposed the motion, the Court finds that she would be unable to meet her burden.

27 /// /// ee enn nee EE OIE EO 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and STRIKES the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action in the FAC.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: March 4, 2025 JM fey JOHN A. MENDEZ 7 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE