Artiaga Castillo v. City Of San Jose

I. BACKGROUND

1 The following discussion of background facts is based on the allegations contained in the 2 Complaint, the truth of which the Court accepts for purposes of resolving the Motion. See Boquist 3 v. Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2022). For about three years, Plaintiff left her RV parked 4 on a city block in San Jose. See Complaint ¶ 11. “There were several [other] RVs parked on the 5 same block.” Id. Then, on an unspecified date, the City left a notice on the window of the RV 6 instructing Plaintiff to move her vehicle. See id. ¶ 6. This was not an isolated incident; “[e]very 7 RV [on the block] was informed by the City to move because the City was planning on doing 8 construction.” Id. ¶ 12. A day or two later, “two San Jose police officers came to [the] RV and 9 told [Plaintiff’s] boyfriend . . . to immediately move [the] RV . . . or else [the] RV would be 10 impounded.” See id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff’s boyfriend, who “was not the owner” of the RV, attempted to 11 comply and move the vehicle, but it ran out of gas. See id. ¶¶ 7-9. The City subsequently 12 impounded the vehicle, including Plaintiff’s property contained inside. See id. ¶¶ 9, 13. …