Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03335/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03335-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA FREDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, a governmental entity; BC

LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE

COMPANY, a corporation; DR. MICHELLE

FAMULA, M.D., an individual; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-03335 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities

not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS defendants Regents of the University of California and

Dr. Michelle Famula’s motion to dismiss the Title IX, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C.

Case 3:06-cv-03335-JSW Document 41 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 § 1983 claims for injunctive relief. The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to

dismiss the Title IX damages claim against Regents and tentatively GRANTS the motion to

dismiss the Title IX damages claim against Dr. Famula. The Court tentatively DENIES

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act against

Dr. Famula. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the section 1983

damages claim against Regents, and tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What facts can Plaintiff allege that would indicate a likelihood of future harm by

Defendants? 

2. Does Plaintiff have any definite intentions to attend or work for the University of

California in the future? 

3. In their reply brief, Defendants argue that Title IX does not provide a cause of action

against individuals. (Reply Br. at 3.) The Eighth, Eleventh, Seventh and First Circuits

have all barred individual liability under Title IX. Kinman v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist., 171 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir. 1999); Floyd v. Waiters, 133 F.3d 786, 789 (11th Cir. 1998),

vacated and remanded, 525 U.S. 802 (1998), reinstated, 171 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 1999),

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 89 (1999); Smith v. Metro. Sch. Dist., 128 F.3d 1014, 1019-20

(7th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998); Lipsett v. Univ. of P.R., 864 F.2d 881,

901 (1st Cir. 1988). What is Plaintiff’s best argument that Title IX should apply to

individuals?

4. The California Supreme Court has upheld an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against both

a company and its employee. Burks v. Poppy Constr. Co., 57 Cal. 2d 463, 467-68

(1962); see also Jackson v. Super. Ct., 30 Cal. App. 4th 936, 938 (1994) (claim against

bank and employee). What is Defendants’ best argument that the Unruh Civil Rights

Act does not apply to individuals?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03335-JSW Document 41 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2