Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01254/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARC OLIN LEVY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRIMERICA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-cv-01254-HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Pro se plaintiff Marc Olin Levy sues for alleged employment discrimination. He says that 

he interviewed for a position with defendant Primerica, Inc. (Primerica), but was not hired because 

he has a criminal record. He seeks $2 billion in damages, claiming that “Primerica discriminated 

against me in employment with their company, due to my criminal background” and that the 

decision not to hire him “is illegal as to California state employment law and EEOC law . . ..” 

(Dkt. 1, ECF p. 7). Levy filed his complaint in state court, and defendant removed the matter here, 

asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

This is not the first time that Levy has sued for alleged employment discrimination based 

on various reasons, including his criminal record. Indeed, the court’s records

1

reveal that, in the 

past two years, the present action is the third employment lawsuit Levy has filed concerning his 

 

1

The court may take judicial notice of its records on its own. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1).

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

criminal record.

2

The prior actions were dismissed with prejudice because having a criminal 

record is not a protected class under either federal or state employment discrimination law, and 

there was no indication that Levy had exhausted his administrative remedies---a necessary 

prerequisite to filing suit. See Case No. 5:14-cv-04073 EJD Levy v. State Farm, Dkt. 27 and 5:15-

cv-05962 HRL Levy v. New York Life Ins. Co., Dkt. 22.

3

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Primerica now moves to dismiss the instant action on 

the ground that the instant complaint suffers from the very same defects as the ones filed in Levy’s 

earlier suits. Plaintiff opposes the motion. All parties have expressly consented that all 

proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral 

argument, and the May 3, 2016 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the 

moving and responding papers, this court grants Primerica’s motion without leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests 

the legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 

2001). Dismissal is appropriate where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of 

sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory. Id. (citing Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)). In such a motion, all material allegations in the 

complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the claimant. Id. 

However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

 

2

Plaintiff has also filed other employment lawsuits, claiming he was not hired because he did not 

have a college degree, see Case No. 5:14-cv-04116-EJD Levy v. Northwestern Mutual Life; and 

because he was in debt, see Case No. 3:12-cv-01298-LB Levy v. Mass Mutual and Case No. 3:15-

cv-06136-EDL Levy v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. All of these actions have been 

dismissed, either on the merits or for failure to prosecute.

3

The complaint filed in Case No. 5:15-cv-05962 HRL Levy v. New York Life Ins. Co. was a

virtually identical copy of an earlier one Levy filed in this court in 2011. See Case No. 3:11-cv06617 JCS Levy v. New York Life Ins. Co. (2011 Action). The judge presiding over the 2011 

Action dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to identify any “legal authority that a 

company’s decision not to hire an individual on the basis of his past criminal record is actionable, 

under either state or federal law.” (Case No. 3:11-cv-06617, Dkt. 6). The case subsequently was 

closed when plaintiff failed to amend his complaint by the court-ordered deadline.

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Moreover, “the court 

is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those 

conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness 

Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” This means that the “[f]actual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citations omitted) 

However, only plausible claims for relief will survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 

1950. A claim is plausible if its factual content permits the court to draw a reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. A plaintiff does not have to provide 

detailed facts, but the pleading must include “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Id. at 1949.

Documents appended to the complaint or which properly are the subject of judicial notice 

may be considered along with the complaint when deciding a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. See

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990); 

MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986).

While leave to amend generally is granted liberally, the court has discretion to dismiss a 

claim without leave to amend if amendment would be futile. Rivera v. BAC Home Loans 

Servicing, L.P., 756 F. Supp.2d 1193, 1997 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 

393 (9th Cir. 1996)).

DISCUSSION

Primerica argues that dismissal is appropriate because the complaint fails to show that 

plaintiff belongs to a protected class and because plaintiff has not alleged that he exhausted his 

administrative remedies. In his opposition, Levy asserts that he went to the EEOC concerning this 

case and that the EEOC “agreed with me that my civil rights have been violated under Title XII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that, I too am a member of a protected class, in that my minor 

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

criminal background should not bar me from employment.” (Dkt. 12).4 He further claims that the 

EEOC gave him the “right to sue” Primerica and “is currently investigating them in regards to this 

case, this specific charge.” (Id.).

None of these assertions are in the complaint. And even if they were, as a matter of law, 

Levy still fails to state a cognizable claim for employment discrimination under either Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., or California’s Fair 

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940, et seq.

To establish a claim under either statute, Levy must show that he belongs to a protected 

class. See generally Adetuyi v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 63 F. Supp.3d 1073, 1083 (N.D. 

Cal. 2014) (citing Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis Bd. of Tr., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000)); 

Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands, 88 Cal. App.4th 1147, 1158 (2001). As plaintiff has already been 

told by more than one judge of this court: having a criminal record is not a protected class under 

either statutory scheme. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (prohibiting employment discrimination based 

on an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) 

(prohibiting employment discrimination based on “the race, religious creed, color, national origin, 

ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital 

status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and 

veteran status of any person . . ..”). Other courts have so held. See, e.g., Manley v. Invesco, 555 

Fed. Appx. 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Persons with criminal records are not a protected class 

under Title VII”); Gray v. The Outsource Group, No. 4:13cv2537 TCM, 2015 WL 1006308 at *5 

(Mar. 5, 2015) (same); Morgan v. Flex Tec, No. 5:12-cv-191 (MTT), 2012 WL 5398401 at *2 

(M.D. Ga., Nov. 5, 2012) (same). Moreover, the fact that Levy reportedly received a “right to 

sue” notice does not signify that he has a valid claim for employment discrimination. The EEOC 

is obliged to issue such notices even when it dismisses a charge. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

For these reasons, Levy fails to state an actionable claim for relief, and Primerica’s motion 

 

4

Inasmuch as plaintiff is alleging employment discrimination, the court assumes that he meant to 

reference Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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 dismiss is granted. As discussed, plaintiff continues to sue for alleged employment 

discrimination based on his criminal record, in apparent disregard of the orders of more than one 

judge of this court telling him that his criminal record cannot form the basis for such claims. That

behavior indicates that plaintiff cannot allege any facts even suggesting that he could plead a 

plausible claim for relief and that amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Levy’s complaint is 

dismissed with prejudice.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff’s 

complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk shall enter judgment and close this file.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

5:16-cv-01254-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Ian Rowe Ross ian.ross@kyl.com, menchie.garcia@kyl.com

Lisa M. Bertain lisa.bertain@kyl.com, menchie.garcia@kyl.com

5:16-cv-01254-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

Marc Olin Levy

18225 Hale Avenue

Morgan Hill, CA 95037

Case 5:16-cv-01254-HRL Document 14 Filed 04/28/16 Page 6 of 6