Laimont

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANEISHA LAIMONT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04702-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

RAMDE RAKESH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 50 Defendants.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to the retaliation claim and denied as to the claim under California Penal Code § 496. The retaliation claim is clearly time-barred based on the facts alleged. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs received a 60-day notice of termination on April 15, 2019, and that they vacated the unit “on or about” June 2019. The complaint was filed on July 14, 2020. Regardless of whether the statute of limitations began upon receipt of the 60-day notice or upon moving out of the unit, the complaint was filed more than one year later, and this claim is thus time-barred. See Altamirano v. Matsu, LLC, 2013 WL 12404713, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013). Dismissal of this claim is with leave to amend. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the section 496 claim is denied. The plaintiffs appear to have the better argument, based on the statutory language, that this section applies…