Schmid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01920-JD

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 7 COUNTY OF SONOMA by and through its

PERMIT AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

13 For defendant County of Sonoma’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 7, the parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the Section 15 1983 claim is dismissed with leave to amend. The County’s request for judicial notice, Dkt. 16 No. 8, is denied as moot, as the Court did not rely on the request in any way for this order. 17 Under the well-established standards of Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of 18 New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the County may be called to answer a Section 1983 claim in 19 federal court only if the complaint plausibly alleges a pattern, practice, or custom of constitutional 20 violations. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91; Prebilich v. City of Cotati, No. 3:21-CV-02380-JD, 21 2021 WL 5964597, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021). “A policy or…