Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01029/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01029-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARID SHAHRIVAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(Re: Docket No. 108, 110)

Plaintiff Farid Shahrivar filed this employment discrimination suit in March 2010.1 The 

operative complaint—his seventh—raises nine causes of action against the City of San Jose and 

nineteen individuals.

2

 Three separate courts in this district have ordered Shahrivar to clarify his 

claims and specify exactly which theory underlies each cause of action against each Defendant.

3

 

Nearly six years into this case, he still has failed to do so. Defendants’ motion to dismiss4is 

GRANTED, without leave to amend.5

I.

Shahrivar, an Iranian-American, worked for the City’s Public Works Department as a 

 

1

See Docket No. 1.

2

See Docket No. 106. According to Defendants, ten of these nineteen no longer work for the City, 

and one has died. See Docket No. 108-1 at 1.

3

See Dockets Nos. 26, 42, 101.

4

See Docket No. 108.

5 Defendants also have filed a separate motion to dismiss under Rule 8 and Rule 41(b). See

Docket No. 110. That motion is DENIED as moot.

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11
2

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

structural engineer from November 26, 2001 until February 20, 2009.6 He claims that he was 

subjected to race and disability discrimination, harassment and retaliation for his complaints

during the course of his employment by the City.

7

The alleged misbehavior started early in Shahrivar’s tenure. From 2003 to 2004, he claims 

that he experienced racial harassment from his subordinate, Susan Lacy.

8 His management 

ignored his complaint.

9

In November 2004, Shahrivar refused to follow his supervisor Rodney 

Rapson’s directive to overlook building code violations.10 On March 14, 2005, Rapson and his 

supervisor, Katherine Jensen, retaliated by demoting Shahrivar and assigning him to another 

supervisor, Danny Tsao, who singled out employees with Middle Eastern ancestry for additional 

monitoring.

11

 

The retaliation only escalated from there. In August 2005, Shahrivar reported the race 

discrimination and Rapson’s interference with building inspection to Katrina Allen, the director of 

the Public Works Department, but she dismissed Shahrivar’s complaint without an investigation.

12

 

Within weeks, his superiors retaliated by denying his request for a transfer, engaging in additional 

monitoring and launching a sexual harassment investigation.

13 In January 2006, after being 

exonerated of the harassment charges, Shahrivar complained of the retaliations to David Sykes, 

the assistant director of the Public Works Department, and again asked for a transfer.

14

 This 

 

6

See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 4, 15.

7

See id. at ¶ 13.

8

See id. at ¶ 15.

9

See id.

10 See id. at ¶ 16.

11 See id. at ¶ 17.

12 See id. at ¶ 18.

13 See id. at ¶¶ 18, 19.

14 See id. at ¶ 20.

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 11
3

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

yielded nothing.

15

 As a result of this pattern of harassment, Shahrivar’s physician finally placed 

him on medical leave from February 2006 to October 30, 2006.16

On June 16, 2006, Shahrivar filed complaints with the California Department of Fair 

Employment and Housing and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.17 The 

agencies issued right-to-sue letters on October 2, 2006 and November 7, 2006, respectively.

18

 

Sykes and Tsao responded with an official reprimand, a poor performance review and another 

demotion.19 Shahrivar filed a second EEOC complaint on February 16, 2007.

20

 The retaliation 

continued through 2007, eventually resulting in another stint on medical leave.21 While he was on 

leave, certain Defendants misled the EEOC investigator, and others targeted him for another 

baseless investigation.

22

 Shahrivar filed his second DFEH complaint on July 1, 2008.23 On 

October 1, 2008, the City forced Shahrivar to return early from his medical leave and denied him a 

reasonable disability accommodation and a transfer.24 Finally, on February 20, 2009, the City 

fired Shahrivar.

25

 He filed his third DFEH complaint on February 18, 2010 and received a right-

 

15 See id.

16 See id. at ¶ 21.

17 See id. at ¶¶ 13, 21; Docket No. 107-1; Docket No. 107-2.

18 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 13, 25-26; Docket No. 107-1; Docket No. 107-2.

19 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 27, 28, 30, 33.

20 See id. at ¶ 13; Docket No. 107-3.

21 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 13, 34-38.

22 See id. at ¶ 38.

23 See id. at ¶ 13; Docket No. 107-9.

24 See Docket No. 106 at ¶ 39.

25 See id. at ¶ 42.

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 11
4

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to-sue notice four days later.

26

 

On March 10, 2010, Shahrivar filed this action.

27

 He asserts the following claims: (1) 

discrimination and retaliation, actionable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1988; (2)

breach of contract; (3) wrongful termination; (4) violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendment and statutory rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988; (5)

violations of his civil rights under the Bane Act;

28 (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 

(7) negligence; (8) intentional interference with contract and (9) violations of Cal. Gov’t Code 

§§ 12940, 12945 and 12945.2, provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.29

II.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367. 

The parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

III.

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.”30 When a plaintiff fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.31 A claim is facially plausible “when the pleaded factual content 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.”32 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable 

 

26 See id. at ¶ 13; Docket No. 107-10.

27 See Docket No. 1.

28 See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52, 52.1.

29 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 48-109.

30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

31 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

32 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). 

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 11
5

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”33 

Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is appropriate if it is clear that the complaint 

could not be saved by amendment.34

At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as 

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.35 The court’s review 

is limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference and 

matters of which the court may take judicial notice.36 However, the court need not accept as true 

allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable inferences.37

First, Shahrivar’s first and fourth claims, which he brings under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 

1985 and 1988, are dismissed because they fail to “clearly describ[e] what [Shahrivar] is accusing 

each defendant of doing and under what theory.”38 Shahrivar attempts to “summarize[]” the 

alleged wrongful acts in a single paragraph that spans nine pages and twenty subparagraphs.39 

Several of the allegations rely on conclusory assertions of a “plan” to retaliate against Shahrivar,40

while others include no details of the wrongful conduct.41 Despite an order over three years ago to 

include “the date the alleged action occurred” for each of his allegations,42 much of Shahrivar’s 

 

33 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

34 See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

35 See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).

36 See id.

37 See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561 (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not survive 

a motion to dismiss).

38 Docket No. 101.

39 Docket No. 106 at ¶ 71.

40 Id. at ¶¶ 71(c), 71(d), 71(e), 71(h), 71(j), 71(k), 71(n), 71(o), 71(r), 90, 94.

41 See id. at ¶¶ 71(e), 71(f), 71(q), 71(s).

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 11
6

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint still refers only to time periods that stretch up to three years.43 Similarly, although 

Shahrivar has been ordered to “state . . . which actions described in his descriptive paragraphs 

constitute [each] cause of action and sub-cause of action,”44 his complaint often omits these 

details.

45

Their opacity aside, the claims have substantive defects too. A Section 1981 or 1983 claim 

for a hostile work environment or retaliation depends on a causal relationship between the alleged 

behavior and the plaintiff’s protected category or protected activity.

46

 Shahrivar pleads these 

causal connections only in conclusory terms47—“[t]hreadbare recitals of a cause of action’s 

elements, supported by mere conclusory statements” that “do not suffice” under Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal.

48

 Other parts of these claims attempt to resuscitate causes of action that have been 

dismissed without leave to amend. Judge Wilken explained that “a failure to correct is not a 

recognized cause of action under § 1981 or § 1983” and dismissed those claims without leave to 

amend.49 Shahrivar nevertheless alleges repeatedly that Defendants failed to remedy a hostile 

work environment.50 For all these reasons, Shahrivar’s federal claims must be dismissed.

Second, the statute of limitations has run on Shahrivar’s breach of contract claim. The 

 

42 Docket No. 42 at 9.

43 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 19, 34-36, 43, 48-49, 71, 73, 89-94.

44 Docket No. 42 at 9.

45 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 71(j), 71(o), 71(p).

46 See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kang v. U. Lim Am., 

Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2002)); Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass’n, 41 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 

1994).

47 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 48-49, 70, 94.

48 556 U.S. at 678.

49 Docket No. 42 at 7.

50 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 48, 71(a), 71(b), 71(f), 71(o), 71(s).

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 6 of 11
7

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

statute of limitations for a breach of an oral or implied-in-fact contract is two years;51 for a written 

contract, the limitations period is four years.52 Because the alleged breach began four years before 

Shahrivar filed suit,53 the cause of action is timely only if the City breached a written contract. 

Shahrivar alleges that the City’s written employment policy formed part of his employment 

contract.54 But at best, the City’s written policies against discrimination and retaliation were an 

implied-in-fact contract between the City and Shahrivar.55 A two-year statute of limitations 

applies to breaches of such an implied contract, and the cause of action is untimely.

The California Government Claims Act independently bars Shahrivar’s breach of contract 

cause of action. “The [CGCA] requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a public entity, the 

timely presentation of a written claim and the rejection of the claim in whole or in part.”56 The 

CGCA’s presentation requirements apply to breach of contract claims57 as well as suits against 

individual public employees arising from actions or omissions within the scope of their 

employment.58 The plaintiff must present a claim to the public entity no later than six months 

 

51 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339; Benay v. Warner Bros. Entmt., Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 632-33 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (citing Blaustein v. Burton, 9 Cal. App. 3d 161, 185 (1970)); Assurance Indus. Co., Inc. 

v. Snag, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-1718, 2011 WL 132860, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011).

52 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.

53 See Docket No. 106 at ¶ 83.

54 See id. at ¶¶ 81, 83.

55 See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 338-46 (2000) (holding that written personnel 

policies can constitute “an implied agreement for employment security” or “an implied contract”).

56 Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Snipes v. City 

of Bakersfield, 145 Cal. App. 3d 861, 865 (1983)); see Cal. Gov’t Code § 905. The CGCA 

formerly was known as the California Tort Claims Act, but the California Supreme Court has held 

that the new name more accurately reflects the broad scope of the Act. See City of Stockton v. 

Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (2007).

57 See City of Stockton, 42 Cal. 4th at 738-41.

58 See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 950.2, 950.6; Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 

(9th Cir. 1988).

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 7 of 11
8

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

after the cause of action accrued,59 and the plaintiff must sue within six months after the public 

entity rejects the claim.60 Although the alleged breach began in 2006, Shahrivar did not file his 

breach of contract claim with the City until August 14, 2009.61 The CGCA precludes him from 

raising it now.

Third, Shahrivar’s causes of action based in tort law—the third, sixth, seventh and eighth 

claims in his operative complaint—cannot survive either. As an initial matter, because the CGCA 

“abolishes common law tort liability for public entities,”62 Shahrivar’s tort claims against the City 

are barred. This includes the entirety of his wrongful termination claim and parts of his intentional 

tort claims. As for Shahrivar’s causes of action against individuals, the claim he filed with the 

City did not mention ten of the nineteen employees who allegedly committed torts against him.

63

 

The claims against those Defendants are dismissed for failure to fulfill the claim presentation 

requirements. Further, although the CGCA requires that a complainant present a claim within six 

months after the cause of action accrues, the bulk of Shahrivar’s tort claims refer to events that 

occurred before February 14, 2009—or more than six months before he filed his claim.

64

 Those 

claims are dismissed as well.

What remain of Shahrivar’s tort claims are “[t]hreadbare recitals” of the elements of each 

of these torts.65 Not one of these claims says precisely which conduct by which defendant on 

 

59 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.2; Robinson v. Alameda Cty., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 

2012).

60 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a).

61 See Docket No. 106 at ¶ 46; Docket No. 107-16.

62 Miklosy v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 44 Cal. 4th 876, 899 (2008).

63 See Docket No. 107-16.

64 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 101, 105, 108; Docket No. 107-16. Shahrivar also did not mention 

any events predating February 19, 2009 in the claim he filed with the City. See Docket No. 107-

16.

65 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 8 of 11
9

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which date satisfies any element of the tort.66 In other words, they do not “clearly describ[e] what 

[Shahrivar] is accusing each defendant of doing and under what theory.”67 They too are 

dismissed.

Fourth, Shahrivar’s Bane Act claim is dismissed because Shahrivar did not present it to 

the City. Claims under the Bane Act are subject to the CGCA’s claim presentation requirements.68 

The complaint that Shahrivar filed with the City did not include his Bane Act claim.69 The claim 

therefore is barred under the CGCA.

Fifth, Shahrivar’s FEHA claims are dismissed as untimely or insufficiently pled. A FEHA 

action must comply with two one-year limitation periods.

70

 First, the plaintiff must file an 

administrative complaint with DFEH within one year after an incident occurs.

71

 Second, the 

plaintiff must file suit within one year after DFEH issues a right-to-sue notice.

72

Shahrivar received two right-to-sue letters from DFEH less than a year before he filed this 

complaint.73 DFEH issued the first letter on June 2, 2009 in response to a complaint Shahrivar

 

66 See Docket No. 106 at ¶¶ 101, 105, 108.

67 Docket No. 101.

68 See Pinon-Gutierrez v. Cal. Highway Patrol, Case No. 15-cv-0343, 2015 WL 5173068, at *3-4 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015); Williams v. City of Antioch, Case No. 08-cv-2301, 2010 WL 3632199, at 

*4-5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010).

69 See Docket No. 107-16.

70 See Docket No. 108-1 at 11-13.

71 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(d) (“No complaint may be filed after the expiration of one year 

from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred.”).

72 See Cal. Gov’t Code §12965(b) (“This notice shall indicate that the person claiming to be 

aggrieved may bring a civil action . . . within one year from the date of that notice.”).

73 Shahrivar received a third DFEH right-to-sue letter on October 2, 2006, more than a year before 

he filed this suit. See Docket No. 107-2. He now argues that tolling should apply so that he may 

revive the claims that he first raised in the 2006 DFEH complaint. See Docket No. 114 at 10. 

Tolling of a DFEH claim requires that “[t]he investigation of the charge is deferred by [DFEH] to 

the [EEOC].” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(d)(1)(B). Here, however, DFEH performed its own 

investigation. See Docket No. 107-2. Tolling does not apply.

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 9 of 11
10

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

filed on July 1, 2008.

74

 The majority of the events Shahrivar included in that complaint began or

occurred before July 1, 2007,75 meaning that they were already untimely when he filed the 

administrative complaint. DFEH issued a second right-to-sue letter on February 22, 2010 in 

response to Shahrivar’s complaint of February 18, 2010.76 This DFEH complaint similarly 

included events that occurred between 2004 and his firing on February 20, 2009,77 even though all 

but the last three days of this five-year span were outside the limitations period.

Nevertheless, in his complaint here, Shahrivar repeats several of these untimely 

allegations, adds other allegations that were not in his DFEH complaints and includes Defendants 

whom he did not name in those complaints.

78

 The claims involving events from before July 1, 

2007 are untimely; those bringing up new allegations or naming new individuals are unexhausted. 

As for the remainder, as above, Shahrivar fails to list specific dates for many of the events in 

question, and he fails to identify the legal theory underlying most of his claims.79 Despite six 

amendments, the complaint falls short of the standard the court has mandated.

IV.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dismissal without leave to amend is only 

appropriate if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment such as after a 

plaintiff’s “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.”80 Shahrivar 

has had five years and six opportunities to correct his complaint and failed to do so each time. 

Leave to amend is DENIED. A separate order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 will issue.

 

74 See Docket No. 107-9.

75 See id.

76 See Docket No. 107-10.

77 See id.

78 See Docket No. 106 at ¶ 111-113.

79 See id.

80 Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 10 of 11
11

Case No. 10-cv-01029-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01029-PSG Document 120 Filed 11/24/15 Page 11 of 11