PB
>>22450979, >>22450995 ANDY NGO REPORTS: Trans terror? Trans duo revealed as suspects in killing of a Vermont border patrol officer
Danielson v. Cnty. of Sonoma
Opinion
21-cv-08854-JCS
04-19-2022
GWEN DANIELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
JOSEPH C. SPERO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NOS. 23, 27
JOSEPH C. SPERO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Gwen Danielson, Emma Borhanian,Jack Lasota, and Alexander Leatham bring claims in this case based on their purportedly false arrest by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies (Joseph Ricks and Daniel Ager-collectively with Sonoma County, the “County Defendants”) after a purportedly false complaint by Defendants Westminster Woods, Christopher Rhodes, and/or Olivia Longstaff (the “Westminster Defendants”). Plaintiffs now move to stay the case based on criminal charges that have been filed against them related to the arrests at issue. The County Defendants do not oppose the stay. The Westminster Defendants oppose the stay for the limited purpose of resolving their pending motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but do not oppose a stay of further proceedings if the Court were to deny the motion to dismiss.
The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing and case management conference previously set for April 22, 2022. A status conference will occur on August 19, 2022 at 2:00 PM.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' motion to stay is GRANTED. The Westminster Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to any argument they might raise after the stay is lifted.
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege that on November 15, 2019, the Westminster Defendants falsely reported to the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department that Plaintiffs had a gun,in order to disrupt Plaintiffs' protest at the Westminster Woods property regarding an alleged coverup of child molestation.Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 20-21. According to Plaintiffs' complaint, the County Defendants arrested each plaintiff for possession of a firearm, despite only one gun being reported and no gun being found. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiffs allege they were mistreated during and after their arrests. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and California's Bane Act and Ralph Act. Id. ¶¶ 26-40. Except for two claims addressing only liability by the County of Sonoma (the ADA claim and a Monell claim), Plaintiffs' claims generally do not distinguish among the various defendants, instead referring generally to misconduct by “Defendants.” See id.
On November 10, 2019, Plaintiffs were charged in state court with felony conspiracy “to commit the crime[s] of Trespass, False Imprisonment, Child Abuse, Resisting Arrest, and Wearling Masks to Avoid Identification, ” as well as related misdemeanors. Friedman Decl. (dkt. 27-1) Ex. A (felony complaint) at 1-2. Plaintiffs' complaint, filed in November of 2021, acknowledged the pending criminal charges, stating that “Plaintiffs seek a stay of this civil action until the underlying criminal matter has resolved” and “will seek to amend this complaint after the underlying criminal matter resolves.” Compl. ¶ 5.
The child abuse allegation in the criminal complaint appears to be based on allegations that Plaintiffs' conduct “caused 18 elementary school children present on the property to be directed to shelter in place for a possible active shooter, ” resulting in “unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering.” Friedman Decl. Ex. A at 2.
https://casetext.com/case/danielson-v-cnty-of-sonoma