INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE

24 Before this Court is the City of Vallejo (the “City”) and 25 Jeremy Callinan’s (“Defendants”) motion for judgment on the 26 27 pleadings. See Mot., ECF No. 11. The Estate of Darryl Mefferd 28 and Evangelina Humphrey (“Plaintiffs”) assert three causes of 1 action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to the in-custody 2 death of Darryl Mefferd on December 7, 2016. See Compl., ECF No. 3 1. Defendants request that the Court grant judgment in their 4 favor on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. 5 See Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs opposed this motion, Opp’n, ECF No. 6 12, and Defendants replied, Reply, ECF No. 13. For the reasons 7 8 provided herein, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for judgment 9 on the pleadings.1 10 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11 Plaintiffs allege that On December 7, 2016, Darryl Dean 12 Mefferd (“Decedent”) was experiencing symptoms of disorientation, 13 paranoia, and dehydration, leading him to a voluntarily check 14 himself into Sutter Solano Medical Center for alcohol withdrawal. 15 See Compl. at ¶ 23. That same night, Decedent voluntarily 16 17 checked himself out of the hospital and hospital staff called his 18 sister, Cindie, to alert her that Decedent had left. Id. at ¶ 19 23. 20 Decedent then encountered Vallejo Police Officer Jeremy 21 Callinan, who was in the vicinity responding to a different call. 22 Id. at ¶¶ 24, 27. Officer Callinan detained, handcuffed, and 23 placed Decedent in the back of his patrol vehicle. Id. at ¶ 27. 24 25 Shortly after, Cindie arrived at the scene and requested to take 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for May 13, 2025. 1 Decedent home. Id. at ¶ 28. Officer Callinan refused, stating 2 that Decedent was not under arrest and that Officer Callinan was 3 taking him to a mental health facility. Id. at ¶ 2. Officer 4 Callinan then drove away and less than thirty minutes later, 5 Decedent was dead. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiffs were informed that 6 Decedent had died from an overdose and that no force was used. 7 8 Id. at ¶ 47. Plaintiffs attempted to obtain records, reports, 9 interview statements, and body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage of the 10 incident, but the City of Vallejo refused to disclose these 11 records. Id. 12 On June 10, 2024, Open Vallejo, an independent newsroom, 13 published an article revealing new information about Decedent’s 14 death.2 Id. at ¶ 31. The article reported that a confidential 15 source who had reviewed Officer Callinan’s BWC footage from the 16 17 date of the incident informed Open Vallejo that the BWC footage 18 contradicts Defendants’ previously disclosed facts about 19 Decedent’s encounter with Officer Callinan. Id. Most 20 significantly, BWC footage purportedly shows that Decedent was 21 handcuffed and that Officer Callinan used force by sitting on 22 Decedent for more than ten minutes. Id. 23 The article also contains several allegations, which 24 25

26 2 Laurence Du Sault, “The secret death of Darryl Dean Mefferd,” 27 Open Vallejo (June 10, 2024), https://openvallejo.org/2024/06/10/the-secret-death-of-darryl- 28 dean-mefferd/ 1 Plaintiffs adopt, that law enforcement worked with Solano County 2 Deputy Coroner Sergeant Corey McLean to write a report covering 3 up any use of force or physical confrontation between Decedent 4 and Officer Callinan. Id. at ¶ 41. This was purportedly done to 5 mislead Plaintiffs about Decedent’s cause of death and to evade 6 California public disclosure laws for deaths related to use of 7 8 force. Id. at ¶¶ 42-44. Three months after learning these facts 9 from Open Vallejo’s article, Plaintiffs promptly filed suit. See 10 ECF No. 1. 11

II. OPINION

12 A. Legal Standard 13 Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil of 14 Procedure, a defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings 15 after the pleadings are closed but within such time as to not 16 17 delay trial. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c). A motion for judgment on 18 the pleadings is analyzed under the same standard as a 12(b)(6) 19 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See 20 Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 21 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 22 Rule 12(b)(6) requires that a complaint make a “short and 23 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 24 25 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. 26 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). At the 12(b)(6) stage, 27 the Court must accept all nonconclusory factual allegations of 28 1 the complaint as true and construe those facts and the 2 reasonable inferences that follow from them in the light most 3 favorable to the Plaintiff. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 4 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). 5 When a complaint is challenged for timeliness, “claim[s] 6 may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that [they 7 8 are] barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when 9 the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the 10 complaint.” Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 11 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). “[W]here the issue 12 of limitations requires determination of when a claim begins to 13 accrue, the complaint should be dismissed only if the evidence 14 is so clear that there is no genuine factual issue and the 15 determination can be made as a matter of law.” Sisseton- 16 17 Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 895 F.2d 588, 591 (9th 18 Cir. 1990). “[A] complaint cannot be dismissed unless it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of 20 facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.” 21 Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th 22 Cir. 1995). 23 B. Analysis 24 25 1. Accrual of Claims 26 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred 27 because they exceed the statute of limitations for personal 28 1 injury actions. See Mot. at 1. Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 2 § 1983 are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations 3 for personal injury actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 4 261, 265 (1985); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 5 2004). Both parties agree that in California, a two-year 6 statute of limitations applies. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 7 8 335.1; Jones, 393 F.3d at 927. Thus, any claim under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 must be brought within two years of accrual to be timely. 10 The accrual of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a question 11 of federal law. See Klein v. City of Beverly Hills, 865 F.3d 12 1276, 1278 (9th Cir. 2017). "Under federal law, a claim accrues 13 when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury 14 which is the basis of the action." Maldonado v. Harris, 370 15 F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 16 17 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001)). In cases alleging excessive force, 18 the cause of action generally accrues when the force is used. 19 See Soto v. Unknown Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871 (9th Cir. 2018). 20 As Defendants point out, a cause of action accrues when a 21 Plaintiff knows of or has reason to know of the injury which is 22 the basis of the action. See Mot. at 3. This accrual is based 23 on what the decedent knew or had reason to know at the time of 24 25 death. See e.g., Estate of Jackson v. City of Modesto, 2021 WL 26 4819604, *8 (E.D. Cal. October 14, 2021); Estate of Kong v. City 27 of San Diego, 2023 WL 4939370, *11-12 (E.D. Cal. August 2, 28 1 2023). Thus, the survival claims here accrued on December 7, 2 2016, and needed to be asserted no later than December 7, 2018, 3 i.e. two-years after Decedent’s death.3 4 2. Equitable Estoppel 5 Plaintiffs argue that even if their claims are untimely, 6 Defendants are estopped from asserting a statute of limitations 7 8 defense because they affirmatively concealed Officer Callinan’s 9 use of force, which precluded Plaintiffs from filing a timely 10 excessive force lawsuit. See Opp’n at 10. The Court agrees. 11 A defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting a 12 statute of limitations defense where the defendant has engaged 13 in active conduct, above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which 14 the plaintiff's claim is filed, to prevent the plaintiff from 15 filing suit within the limitations period. See Johnson v. 16 17 Henderson, 314 F.3d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 2002). “Where the delay 18 in commencing action is induced by the conduct of the defendant 19 it cannot be availed of by him as a defense.” Atwater 20 Elementary School Dist. v. Cal. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 41 Cal.4th 21 227, 232-33 (2007). 22 As Defendants acknowledge, Mot. at 6, in the context of a 23 24 3 Defendants’ motion does not address Plaintiffs’ second cause of 25 action, but the familial association claim is dependent on the survival of the first and third claims. See Schwarz v. Lassen 26 Cnty. ex rel. Lassen Cnty. Jail, 628 F. App'x 527, 528 (9th Cir. 27 2016)(“Recovery for a violation of the right to familial association is generally contingent on the existence of an 28 underlying constitutional violation.”). 1 wrongful death action involving claims of police excessive 2 force, fraudulent concealment has been found where the defendant 3 has made misrepresentations to the Plaintiff regarding the 4 incident that persuaded the Plaintiff not to file suit. See 5 Estate of Amaro v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 6 2011). For example, in Gomez v. City of Torrance, 311 Fed. 7 8 Appx. 967, 969 (9th Cir. 2009), a court found sufficient 9 allegations to support equitable estoppel where the police 10 department and District Attorney provided Plaintiff with a 11 report that included false and misleading statements that were 12 contradicted by video footage. See Mot. at 6. 13 Construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the 14 Plaintiffs and taking their facts as true, the Court finds that 15 Plaintiffs are entitled to invoke the doctrine of equitable 16 17 estoppel here because they have sufficiently alleged that they 18 were kept in the dark about key facts surrounding Decedent’s 19 encounter with Vallejo Police and misled by official statements 20 from law enforcement. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that 21 official police records were “sanitize[ed]” to classify Decedent 22 Mefferd’s death as an accidental overdose. See Compl. at ¶¶ 44, 23 47. These sanitization efforts were perpetrated when Solano 24 25 County Deputy Corey McLean changed his report based on a 26 conversation with Solano County Detective Ronnie Sefried and 27 Vallejo Sergeant Matthew Mustard, who “convinced Detective 28 1 Sefried and Sergeant McLean to change their narratives and write 2 a report that left out the force and physical confrontation 3 between Decedent and [Officer Callinan].” See Compl. at ¶ 41. 4 Plaintiffs further allege that official records and 5 communications from the City of Vallejo designated Darryl 6 Mefferd’s death as an accidental overdose. See Compl. at ¶ 47. 7 8 After the incident, Defendants refused Decedent family’s 9 requests to disclose body camera evidence, reports, and 10 interview statements and have denied that Officer Callinan had 11 any physical confrontation with Decedent Mefferd. See Compl. at 12 ¶¶ 44, 45. 13 Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs’ allegations 14 demonstrate that Defendants engaged in active conduct beyond the 15 initial interaction with Decedent to mislead Plaintiffs about 16 17 the true nature of Mefferd’s death, preventing them from filing 18 a timely lawsuit. Plaintiffs did not know and did not have 19 reasonable cause to know Decedent’s death was related to 20 excessive force or police action at all until these facts came 21 to light in June 2024 via the confidential source and Open 22 Vallejo’s investigative reporting. Because Defendants are 23 alleged to have taken active and coordinated efforts across City 24 25 departments to conceal Officer Callinan’s alleged use of force, 26 Defendants are estopped from benefitting from the alleged 27 misconduct and asserting a statute of limitations defense. 28 ——— mR IO EINE III EDIE GENEID IE SAE ESA ES IER EINE OES IEE eee

1 3. Delayed Discovery 2 Having found that Defendants are estopped from asserting a 3 statute of limitations defense, the Court need not address 4 Plaintiffs’ other arguments regarding tolling the statute of 5 limitations here. 6 4 IIL. ORDER 8 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 9 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 9, 2025 12 13 14 JOHN A. MENDEZ

SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10