1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 AHMAD RAHEEM PRICE, Case No. 5:23-cv-00608-JLS (GJS)

12 Plaintiff

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART

13 v. FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF

14 RUSLAN YERAMISHYN, et al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

15 Defendants.

16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended 19 Complaint (Doc. 54), all relevant documents filed and lodged in this action, 20 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 55), and all 21 related briefing (Docs 57-58), and the Report and Recommendation of United States 22 Magistrate Judge (Doc. 60, “R&R”). The time for filing Objections to the Report 23 has passed and no Objections have been filed. 24 25 Having completed its review, and subject to the discussion, below, the Court 26 accepts part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in the Report. 27 28 1 First, the Court declines to adopt the alternative basis for the ruling on the 2 timeliness of Defendant’s claims. (R&R, Doc. 60 at 9-10.) Specifically, the R&R 3 states that the relation-back doctrine of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) would 4 apply to Plaintiff’s claims. This alternative basis is unnecessary to the conclusions 5 reached regarding the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims, and therefore the Court 6 declines to adopt it. 7 8 Second, although the Court agrees with the first conclusion reached by the 9 Magistrate Judge set forth in footnote 3, it does so on a different rationale. (See 10 R&R at 9 n.3.) Specifically, the Court agrees with R&R’s conclusion that, despite 11 mixed case law on the issue, the tolling provision for inmates (found at California 12 Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1) applies to the claims of pretrial detainees. But the 13 Court does so on its more fulsome analysis set forth in Venegas v. Cnty. of 14 Riverside, No. 5:18-CV-02293-JLS-SHK, 2025 WL 1409580, at *2-6 (C.D. Cal. 15 May 13, 2025). 16 17 In Venegas, because the California Supreme Court had not (and has not) ruled 18 on § 352.1’s applicability to the claims of pretrial detainees, a tension arose as to 19 whether a Ninth Circuit opinion was still binding on federal district courts in the 20 face of an intermediate state appellate decision that held to the contrary. See id. at 21 *3-4 (discussing Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 1994) 22 and Austin v. Medicis, 21 Cal.App.5th 577 (2018)). This Court first defined the 23 proper legal standard for resolving this tension. In the absence of authority from the 24 state’s highest court, an intermediate state appellate decision is “‘a datum for 25 ascertaining state law’” that must be considered along with other sources to 26 “‘ascertain from all the available data what the state law is.’” Id. at *4 (quoting 27 West v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236-37 (1940)); see also Vestar Dev. II, 28 LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001). Where a court is 1 || “convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide” 2 || contrary to the state intermediate appellate decision, such a decision is not binding 3 || on the federal court. West, 311 U.S. at 237. 4 5 After determining the proper legal standard, this Court held that Austin’s 6 || interpretation of § 352.1 as inapplicable to pretrial detainees was at odds with 7 || fundamental rules of statutory construction as adopted by the California Supreme 8 || Court. Venegas, 2025 WL 1409580 at *4-6. And having rejected Austin’s 9 || interpretation as contrary to California Supreme Court authority, this Court applied 10 || the controlling Ninth Circuit authority and held that § 352.1 applied to toll a pretrial 11 || detainee’s claims for up to two years. Id. 12 13 Based on this rationale, the Court adopts the conclusion, set forth in footnote 14 || 3 of the R&R, that E//iot controls and that the California Code of Civil Procedures 15 || § 352.1 applies to toll the limitations periods of claims asserted by pretrial detainees. 16 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Motion is DENIED; and 18 || Defendants shall file and serve an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint within 19 || 30 days of this Order. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || DATE: August 3, 2025 7 —— 23 Py S ih 74 JOSEPHINE EL. STATON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28