3Pak LLC v. City of Seattle

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT SEATTLE 5 3PAK LLC d/b/a OMA BAP, 6 Plaintiff, C23-0540 TSZ 7 v. ORDER 8 CITY OF SEATTLE, 9 Defendant. [10] THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, docket no. 17, [11] brought by defendant City of Seattle (the “City”). Having reviewed all papers filed in [12] support of, and in opposition to, the motion, the Court determines that oral argument is [13] unnecessary and enters the following Order. [14] Background [15] This action arises from the City’s response to the Capitol Hill Organized Protest [16] (“CHOP”) in June 2020. Compl. at ¶ 1 (docket no. 1). Plaintiff 3Pak LLC d/b/a Oma [17] Bap (“Oma Bap”) is a Korean restaurant located at 1640 11th Avenue, directly across the [18] street from Cal Anderson Park in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 32. [19] Counsel and the Court are well acquainted with the City’s response to CHOP, which was [20] the subject of prior litigation involving multiple property owners, businesses, and [21] residents in the Capitol Hill neighborhood who alleged that the City’s support, [22] 1 encouragement, and endorsement of CHOP violated their legal rights. See Hunters 2 Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle, No. C20-983 TSZ (W.D. Wash.) [hereinafter the 3 “Hunters Capital matter”].1 Notably, Oma Bap brings several of the same claims that 4 this Court heard in the Hunters Capital matter, namely (i) violation of substantive due 5 process, (ii) taking under “per se” and “right of access” theories of liability, 6 (iii) negligence, and (iv) nuisance.2 Compl. at ¶¶ 90–118. Like the plaintiffs in the 7 Hunters Capital matter, Oma Bap alleges that the City’s “support, encouragement, and 8 endorsement” of CHOP violated its rights and caused it significant financial harm. See 9 id. at ¶¶ 10, 66–76. 10 As this Court has discussed in great detail in its orders in the Hunters Capital 11 matter, CHOP began on June 8, 2020, when the City “abruptly deserted” the Seattle 12 Police Department’s East Precinct, located at 12th Avenue and East Pine Street, amid 13 ongoing civil rights protests. See id. at ¶¶ 3, 18. After the City “abandoned the precinct,” 14 protesters repurposed barriers that police had left behind and blocked public streets and 15 sidewalks in the surrounding area. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 19–20. In the days and weeks that [17] 1 Counsel for Oma Bap represented plaintiffs in the Hunters Capital matter. Likewise, the City has been represented by the same counsel in both actions. [18] 2 On January 13, 2023, this Court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion for summary 19 judgment in the Hunters Capital matter, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for violation of procedural due process, violation of substantive due process, and negligence. Hunters Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2023 WL 184209 , at *15–16 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2023). The Court also [20] granted the City’s motion for summary judgment as it related to plaintiffs’ taking claim under a per se theory of liability. Id. at *16. The Court denied the City’s motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims 21 for nuisance and taking under a right of access theory of liability. Id. The parties ultimately reached a settlement in the Hunters Capital matter and the Court dismissed the action on February 16, 2023. Order 22 of Dismissal (C20-983 TSZ, docket no. 182). 1 followed, the CHOP area expanded to an approximately 16-block portion of the Capitol 2 Hill neighborhood. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 20–22. CHOP’s unofficial boundaries allegedly extended 3 from East Denny Way (to the north), Thirteenth Avenue (to the east), East Pike Street (to 4 the south), and Broadway (to the west). Id. at ¶ 22. Oma Bap alleges that the City 5 provided Cal Anderson Park, a public park located at the center of the CHOP area, as a 6 staging ground for protest activities. Id. at ¶ 6. As a result, Cal Anderson Park was 7 “transformed into a massive tent city for CHOP participants.” Id. at ¶ 33. 8 According to Oma Bap, the City supported CHOP and its participants by placing 9 large dumpsters and portable toilets at the intersection of Eleventh Avenue and Olive 10 Street, “just outside” Oma Bap’s front door. Id. at ¶ 64. The City’s placement of these 11 dumpsters and portable toilets resulted in the accumulation of garbage and human waste 12 outside of the business, “making the area unsightly, unsanitary, unsafe, and treacherous to 13 navigate.” Id. The area was also difficult to traverse because CHOP participants 14 regularly relocated makeshift and City-provided barriers to block public streets and 15 sidewalks throughout the CHOP area, including the intersection of Eleventh Avenue and 16 Olive Street. Id. at ¶ 62. Oma Bap contends that many of its employees, suppliers, and 17 customers could not “safely access” the business or decided to avoid the area entirely 18 during CHOP, resulting in decreased revenue and profits. Id. at ¶¶ 63, 67. 19 Because police officers would enter the CHOP area only under certain, limited 20 circumstances, the City observed an increase in criminal activity, including two fatal 21 shootings, harassment, and vandalism. Id. at ¶¶ 40–46, 80. Oma Bap alleges that it 22 suffered thousands of dollars in damages from vandalism to its business, “including 1 numerous times that its store windows were scratched or shattered by people residing in 2 Cal Anderson Park.” Id. at ¶ 72. Oma Bap also suffered losses when individuals posing 3 as delivery drivers stole food, beverages, and snacks from the establishment. Id. at 4 ¶ 68.e. Although the City cleared the area of barricades and encampments on July 1, 5 2020, officially ending CHOP, Oma Bap alleges that, shortly thereafter, the City allowed 6 individuals to reoccupy Cal Anderson Park, where they engaged in regular, unpermitted 7 protests until December 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 89, 95. Oma Bap contends that the reoccupation 8 of Cal Anderson Park continued to harm its business because the encampment was 9 located “only a few dozen feet” from its front door. Id. at ¶ 37. 10 Oma Bap commenced this action on April 6, 2023, and the City now moves under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Oma Bap’s claims for (i) violation of 12 substantive due process, (ii) taking under per se and “right of access” theories of liability, 13 and (iii) negligence. 14 Discussion 15 1. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard 16 Although a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss need not 17 provide detailed factual allegations, it must offer “more than labels and conclusions” and 18 contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must indicate more than mere 20 speculation of a right to relief. Id. When a complaint fails to adequately state a claim, 21 such deficiency should be “exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and 22 money by the parties and the court.” Id. at 558 . A complaint may be lacking for one of 1 two reasons: (i) absence of a cognizable legal theory, or (ii) insufficient facts under a 2 cognizable legal claim. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530 , 534 3 (9th Cir. 1984). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must assume the truth of the 4 plaintiff’s allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Usher v. 5 City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). The question for the Court is 6 whether the facts in the complaint sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for relief. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . If the Court dismisses the complaint or portions thereof, it 8 must consider whether to grant leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 9 Cir. 2000). 10 2. First Claim: Substantive Due Process 11 Oma Bap’s first claim alleges that the City violated its Fourteenth Amendment 12 substantive due process right “to be protected from state-created dangers.” Compl. at 13 ¶ 91. Specifically, Oma Bap contends that the City’s assistance, endorsement, and 14 encouragement of CHOP and its participants “greatly increased the likelihood of property 15 damage, loss of business revenue, loss of use of property, and other damage to” its 16 business. Id. at ¶ 92. Oma Bap’s claim mirrors the substantive due process claims 17 brought by the Hunters Capital plaintiffs, which this Court dismissed at the summary 18 judgment stage in that matter. See 3d Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 197–202 (C20-983 TSZ, docket 19 no. 47); Hunters Capital, 2023 WL 184209 , at *15. 20 Importantly, the Due Process Clause does not, on its face, require a governmental 21 entity “to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private 22 actors,” DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989), 1 and, “[a]s a general rule, members of the public have no constitutional right to sue 2 [governmental actors] who fail to protect them against harm inflicted by third parties,” 3 L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 197 ); 4 see also Martinez v. City of Clovis, 943 F.3d 1260 , 1271 (9th Cir. 2019). Like the 5 plaintiffs in the Hunters Capital matter, Oma Bap relies on a single exception to this 6 general rule, namely the state-created danger exception. Compl. at ¶¶ 91–96. 7 To prevail on a state-created danger claim, Oma Bap must establish that (i) the 8 City’s affirmative actions created or exposed it to an actual, particularized danger that it 9 would not have otherwise faced, (ii) it suffered a foreseeable injury, and (iii) the City was 10 deliberately indifferent to the known danger. See Sinclair v. City of Seattle, 61 F.4th 674 , 11 680 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125 , 1133–34 (9th 12 Cir. 2018)). The City contends that Oma Bap’s substantive due process claim fails 13 because it has not plausibly alleged either that the City exposed it to an actual, 14 particularized danger it would not have otherwise faced, or that the City acted with 15 deliberate indifference to that danger. In contrast, Oma Bap argues that its factual 16 allegations are “more than adequate” to state a substantive due process claim in light of 17 the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Sinclair, another CHOP-related case. Oma Bap 18 contends that Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Sinclair casts serious doubt on this Court’s 19 dismissal of the plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims in the Hunters Capital matter. 20 In Sinclair, a mother brought suit against the City after her nineteen-year-old son 21 was shot to death within the CHOP area in June 2020. 61 F.4th at 676–77. In affirming 22 the district court’s dismissal of the mother’s substantive due process claim, the Sinclair 1 Court explained that, although the mother adequately alleged “that the City created, or at 2 least significantly contributed to, the danger her son faced,” she failed to allege that the 3 danger was “sufficiently particularized” to support her claim. Id. at 682. The Ninth 4 Circuit concluded that “any danger the City created or contributed to by enabling the 5 CHOP area affected all CHOP visitors equally; the danger was not specifically directed 6 at” her son. Id. Stated differently, the dangers her son faced “as a result of the City 7 ignoring the lawlessness and crime occurring in CHOP were the same as [those of] 8 anyone else” in the area. Id. Although it offered “no opinion” on the Hunters Capital 9 plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims, the Ninth Circuit recognized, in dicta, that the 10 facts alleged by the Hunters Capital plaintiffs were “appreciably closer to meeting the 11 particularity standard” than the mother’s allegations in Sinclair. Id. at 683 (citing 12 Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle, 499 F. Supp. 3d 888 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (ruling 13 on the City’s motion to dismiss)). 14 Despite Oma Bap’s argument to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in 15 Sinclair has not “de facto overruled” this Court’s order in the Hunters Capital matter 16 granting the City’s motion for summary judgment as it related to the plaintiffs’ 17 substantive due process claims. Like the mother’s allegations in Sinclair, Oma Bap has 18 failed to plausibly allege that the City’s response to CHOP created a particularized 19 danger for Oma Bap. See 61 F.4th at 682 (explaining that “[a] danger is ‘particularized’ 20 if it is directed at a specific victim”). Although Oma Bap alleges that the City knew of 21 the harm it was suffering during CHOP because Oma Bap regularly complained to City 22 officials about the specific adverse effects CHOP was having on its business, see Compl. 1 at ¶¶ 73–74, the danger alleged in the operative complaint was not directed specifically at 2 Oma Bap or any discrete and identifiable group. Rather, Oma Bap alleges that the City 3 created a generalized danger for all businesses, property owners, and residents in the 4 CHOP area and the Capitol Hill neighborhood.3 5 Notably, cases in which the Ninth Circuit has recognized a state-created danger 6 involve allegations that governmental actors (typically law enforcement officers) exposed 7 individual plaintiffs or discrete groups of plaintiffs to specific, immediate, and 8 particularized harm. See, e.g., Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1989) 9 (police impounded a vehicle and abandoned a woman in a high-crime area where she was 10 subsequently raped); Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dep’t, 227 F.3d 1082 , 1084–85 11 (9th Cir. 2000) (police ejected an intoxicated man, who was wearing only jeans and a t12 shirt, from a bar into subfreezing winter weather, as a result of which he died of 13 hypothermia); Hernandez v. City of San Jose, 897 F.3d 1125 , 1128–1130 (9th Cir. 2018) 14 (police directed a group of pro-Trump rally attendees into a group of anti-Trump [16] 3 See, e.g., Compl. at ¶ 2 (docket no. 1) (“The City’s [response to CHOP] subjected businesses, employees, and residents of [the Capitol Hill] neighborhood to extensive property damage, public safety [17] dangers, and an inability to use and access their properties.”); see also id. at ¶ 9 (“The City’s conduct enabled the widespread destruction and vandalism of private property [in the CHOP area].”); id. at ¶ 10 18 (“The property owners, businesses, and residents in the area suffered ever-increasing property damage and economic loss every day that CHOP existed in their neighborhood.”); id. at ¶ 81.a (“The City 19 deliberately and actively chose to preserve and facilitate the occupation [of the CHOP area], through the various means described throughout this complaint, at the expense of individuals living and working in the neighborhood, including [Oma Bap].”); id. at ¶ 81.b (“The City kept its own employees out of the area [20] as much as possible, fearing for their safety, but left individuals who lived and worked in the neighborhood, including [Oma Bap], to fend for themselves with no police response.”); id. at ¶ 82 (“The 21 City also enabled the blocking of ingress and egress for businesses and residents in the area[.]”); id. at ¶ 94 (“Numerous officials at the City foresaw that its actions would increase crime and harm to 22 businesses in the area.”). 1 protesters, some of whom assaulted the plaintiffs). The alleged dangers in this case, 2 namely an increased likelihood of property damage, loss of business revenue, and loss of 3 use of property, see Compl. at ¶¶ 92–95, purportedly lasted from June to December 2020 4 and, according to Oma Bap’s complaint, affected all businesses, employees, and residents 5 of Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, see id. at ¶ 2. In other words, the City’s response 6 to CHOP was not directed toward Oma Bap and did not otherwise expose Oma Bap to 7 any particularized harm. The Court therefore GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss as it 8 relates to Oma Bap’s first claim for substantive due process.4 Although the Court is 9 skeptical that Oma Bap can cure these factual deficiencies through additional allegations, 10 the claim is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. 11 3. Second Claim: Taking 12 Oma Bap’s second claim alleges that the City effected a taking of its 13 constitutionally protected rights to exclude others from its property (a per se theory of 14 liability) and to access its property via public rights-of-way (a right of access theory of 15 liability). Compl. at ¶¶ 98–101. 16 With respect to its claim of taking under a per se theory of liability, Oma Bap has 17 not pleaded any facts to support that the City expressly authorized third-party physical 18 invasions of its property. Although the right to exclude is a “fundamental element of the 19 property right,” Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 , 179–80 (1979), and is not [21] 4 The Court DENIES the City’s motion to the extent that it is premised on a failure to adequately plead the requisite deliberate indifference toward the dangers of supporting, encouraging, and endorsing CHOP 22 and its participants. 1 “an empty formality, subject to modification at the government’s pleasure,” Cedar Point 2 Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 , 2077 (2021), third-party trespass, without more, does 3 not constitute an actionable taking. Unlike Cedar Point, in which a California regulation 4 granted union organizers the right to enter private farmland, 141 S. Ct. at 2069, or 5 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982), in which a New 6 York statute authorized a third party to install cable equipment on private apartment 7 buildings, id. at 421 , in this case, Oma Bap has not alleged that the City granted CHOP 8 participants a “formal entitlement” to enter its business. See Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 9 2079–80 (“Unlike a mere trespass, [California’s] regulation grants a formal entitlement to 10 physically invade the growers’ land.” (emphasis added)). Rather, the only reasonable 11 inference drawn from Oma Bap’s complaint is that some CHOP participants 12 independently entered its property without permission and that Oma Bap’s reports of 13 trespass received no response from the police. Compl. at ¶ 68.e. 14 Oma Bap also fails to plausibly allege its taking claim under a right of access 15 theory of liability. Although an owner’s right of access to his or her property is 16 recognized under Washington law, Keiffer v. King County, 89 Wn.2d 369 , 372–73, 572 17 P.2d 408 (1977), a right of access taking claim is not without limit, and Oma Bap must 18 allege “more than mere inconvenience at having to travel a further distance to its business 19 facility.” See Union Elevator & Warehouse v. Washington, 96 Wn. App. 288, 296 , 980 20 P.2d 779 (1999); see also Pande Cameron & Co. of Seattle, Inc. v. Cent. Puget Sound 21 Reg’l Transit Auth., 610 F. Supp. 2d 1288 , 1303–04 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (holding that 22 “intermittent inconveniences” related to a tunnel construction project did not rise to the 1 level of a constitutional taking). Here, Oma Bap contends that the “streets and sidewalks 2 directly adjacent to Oma Bap and in the nearby area were constantly impeded” during 3 and after CHOP. Compl. at ¶ 61. Oma Bap also alleges that the “City reached an 4 informal agreement with CHOP participants to provide dozens of concrete barriers to 5 allow limited one-way access on Eleventh5 and Twelfth Avenues starting on June 16, 6 2020.” Id. at ¶ 82. Although Oma Bap contends that the City turned the intersection 7 nearest its business into the “epicenter” of public sanitation efforts in the CHOP area, 8 “making the area unsightly, unsanitary, unsafe, and treacherous to navigate,” id. at ¶ 64, 9 Oma Bap does not allege that its employees, suppliers, and customers were unable to 10 access the business during and after CHOP; Oma Bap asserts only that they chose not to 11 come to the business based on safety concerns, id. at ¶ 63 (“In many cases, this meant 12 that [Oma Bap’s] employees, suppliers, and customers could not safely access [its] 13 business or simply avoided the area entirely.” (emphasis added)). In sum, Oma Bap has 14 not plausibly alleged that access to its business was eliminated or substantially impaired. 15 Because Oma Bap has not adequately pleaded a taking claim against the City 16 under either a per se or right of access theory of liability, the City’s motion to dismiss is 17 GRANTED as it relates to Oma Bap’s second claim for taking, and this claim is 18 DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. [21] 22 5 Oma Bap is located on Eleventh Avenue. Compl. at ¶ 14. 1 4. Third Claim: Negligence 2 Oma Bap’s third claim alleges that the City breached a duty owed to it under the 3 Seattle Municipal Code and the Seattle Fire Code. Compl. at ¶ 105–111. Oma Bap 4 contends the City failed to enforce a provision of the Seattle Municipal Code that 5 allegedly requires it to designate “an alternate proposal for those who wished to create 6 and participate in CHOP and otherwise occupy Cal Anderson Park.” Id. at ¶ 109. Oma 7 Bap also alleges that the City failed to clear public streets as required by the Seattle Fire 8 Code. Id. 9 Under Washington law, a plaintiff must prove four elements to prevail on a 10 negligence claim: (i) “the existence of a duty”; (ii) “a breach of that duty”; (iii) “a 11 resulting injury”; and (iv) “the breach [w]as the proximate cause of the injury.” Ehrhart 12 v. King County, 195 Wn.2d 388 , 396, 460 P.3d 612 (2020). “When the defendant in a 13 negligence action is a governmental entity, the public duty doctrine provides that a 14 plaintiff must show the duty breached was owed to him or her in particular, and was 15 not . . . an obligation owed to the public in general.” Munich v. Skagit Emergency 16 Commc’n Ctr., 175 Wn.2d 871, 878 , 288 P.3d 328 (2012). Essentially, “a duty owed to 17 all is a duty owed to none.” Id. 18 Although Washington courts recognize four exceptions to this doctrine, Oma Bap 19 relies on only the “failure-to-enforce” exception. See Resp. at 18 (docket no. 19) . The 20 failure-to-enforce exception “recognizes that some statutes impose on [the] government a 21 duty owed to a particular class or category of individuals, such that the failure to enforce 22 those statutes breaches a duty that can sustain an action in tort.” Hunters Capital, 2023 1 WL 184209 , at *11 (alteration in original, quoting Ehrhart, 195 Wn.2d at 402). To prove 2 that the exception applies, a plaintiff must show that (i) “governmental agents responsible 3 for enforcing statutory requirements possess actual knowledge of a statutory violation,” 4 (ii) the agents “fail to take corrective action despite a statutory duty to do so,” and 5 (iii) “the plaintiff is within the class the statute intended to protect.” Ehrhart, 195 Wn.2d 6 at 402 (citing Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wn.2d 262, 268 , 737 P.2d 1257 (1987)). 7 As in the Hunters Capital matter, Oma Bap premises its negligence claim solely 8 on the City’s alleged failure to enforce Seattle Municipal Code § 15.52 (the “Street Use 9 Ordinance”) and certain provisions of the Seattle Fire Code. See Resp. at 22 n.8 10 (explaining that Oma Bap’s claim for negligence is “co-extensive” with the plaintiffs’ 11 negligence claims in the Hunters Capital matter). In Hunters Capital, this Court 12 dismissed the plaintiffs’ negligence claims at the summary judgment stage because the 13 plaintiffs (multiple property owners, businesses, and residents in the Capitol Hill 14 neighborhood) could not meet the second or third elements of the failure-to-enforce 15 exception as a matter of law. 2023 WL 184209 , at *11–13. Specifically, the Court found 16 that the Street Use Ordinance and Fire Code did not impose on the City a mandatory duty 17 to take corrective action in the event of a known violation, and that the plaintiffs were not 18 within the class the provisions were intended to protect. Id. 19 Oma Bap’s negligence claim fails for the same reasons. Even assuming the truth 20 of its allegations, Oma Bap has not stated a cognizable negligence claim against the City 21 for the City’s alleged failure to enforce the Street Use Ordinance and the Seattle Fire 22 Code. Significantly, these provisions are intended to promote the health, safety, and 1 welfare of the general public and, with respect to these provisions, any duty the City 2 allegedly breached was a duty owed to the general public and not a duty owed 3 specifically to Oma Bap. See Hunters Capital, 2023 WL 184209 , at *11–13. Because 4 Oma Bap cannot satisfy all elements of the failure-to-enforce exception, the City’s 5 motion is GRANTED as to Oma Bap’s third claim for negligence. Because this defect 6 cannot be cured by alleging additional factual content, the Court concludes that 7 amendment is futile and DISMISSES Oma Bap’s negligence claim with prejudice. 8 5. Fourth Claim: Nuisance 9 The City initially moved to dismiss Oma Bap’s nuisance claim, arguing that the 10 claim was subsumed by Oma Bap’s third claim for negligence. See Atherton Condo. 11 Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 527 , 799 P.2d 12 250 (1990) (explaining that Washington courts do not separately consider negligence 13 claims presented in the garb of nuisance). Because Oma Bap has since clarified that its 14 nuisance claim is premised on the City’s affirmative conduct in support of CHOP, and 15 not on the City’s alleged failure to enforce the Street Use Ordinance or Fire Code, the 16 City has withdrawn this portion of its motion. Reply at 1 (docket no. 20). The City’s 17 motion to dismiss is therefore STRICKEN as moot as it relates to Oma Bap’s fourth 18 claim for nuisance. 19 Conclusion 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 21 (1) The City’s motion to dismiss, docket no. 17, is GRANTED in part and 22 STRICKEN in part as follows: 1 (a) The City’s motion is GRANTED with respect to Oma Bap’s first 2 claim for violation of its substantive due process rights, second claim for taking, 3 and third claim for negligence. Oma Bap’s claims for violation of its substantive 4 due process rights and for taking are DISMISSED without prejudice and with 5 leave to amend. Oma Bap’s claim for negligence is DISMISSED with prejudice 6 because amendment would be futile. 7 (b) The City’s motion is STRICKEN with respect to Oma Bap’s fourth 8 claim for nuisance. 9 (2) Oma Bap may file any amended complaint on or before September 14, 10 2023. The City shall answer or otherwise respond to any amended complaint by 11 October 5, 2023. If Oma Bap does not file an amended complaint in this action, the 12 City’s answer to Oma Bap’s complaint, docket no. 1, is due on or before September 25, 13 2023. 14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 29th day of August, 2023. [17] A [18] Thomas S. Zilly [19] United States District Judge