Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 19STCV13057, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Seventh Cause of Action alleging a violation of the Bance Civil Rights Act is GRANTED without leave to amend.

For the reasons set forth in the motion and the reply, the motion is granted.

The requests for judicial notice are granted as to any case materials and are otherwise denied.

Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the laws of California were violated. (SAC, Paragraphs 50 and 51.) No further detail is provided about the alleged violation of his rights.

A review of the Second Amended Complaint reveals that Plaintiff contends that he was wrongly detained and harmed in the process by private security guards at Dodgers Stadium.

However, our Supreme Court has ruled that a Bane Civil Rights Act cause of action based on a claim of interference with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 13 of the California Constitution only may be brought against government actors. (Jones v. Kmart (1998) 17 Cal.4th 329, 334.)

In his opposition, Plaintiff claims that the right violated which supports the Bane Civil Rights Act cause of action is his right to happiness and liberty pursuant to California Constitution Article I, Section 1. (Opposition at pgs. 5-7.)

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the action by the security guards of stopping him from walking to a restroom violated his right to happiness and liberty. (Opposition at Pg. 7.) However, Plaintiff has provided no authority that such a right is implicated here. Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution enshrines the right to privacy.

Ultimately, Plaintiff is complaining about his detention by the security guards at Dodgers Stadium and the manner in which that detention was carried out. Such a complaint as pled cannot form the basis for a Bane Civil Rights Act cause of action.

Plaintiff has not put forward a plan to amend the Second Amended Complaint to address the deficiency. Plaintiff merely states that “if necessary, Plaintiff could amend by adding the words of the California Constitution that were violated.” (Opposition at pg. 9-10.)

This case has been pending since 2019 and the motion at issue here was filed on December 8, 2023. Moreover, Plaintiff has long known about Defendants’ issue with this cause of action based on the dealings of the parties in this case as well as in other similar litigation pending between the parties.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice.