Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01503/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01503-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAYNA G. KALIMA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-1503 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT AND MOTION TO

DISMISS; GRANTING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 4, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendant Regents of the University of

California’s (“UC Regents”) motion for a more definite statement and motion to dismiss. After careful

consideration of the parties’ papers and discussion in open court, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action against defendant UC

Regents WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff does not oppose the balance of defendant’s motion, and

accordingly the Court hereby DISMISSES the fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth causes

of action against defendant UC Regents WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

1. Fifth Cause of Action for Title IX Sex Discrimination

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action alleges that defendant UC Regents is liable for sex discrimination

under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. As currently framed,

plaintiff’s Title IX claim is too general and devoid of any specific facts. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS defendant’s motion for a more definite statement; plaintiff must amend the complaint to

include specific factual allegations regarding the university officials who allegedly knew about the

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Defendant UC Regents requests judicial notice of plaintiff's change of name; her UC Berkeley

transcript; as well as of two letters, one to UC Berkeley Chancellor Berdahl, and one to Chancellor

Birgeneau. The Court DENIES both requests for judicial notice. For purposes of the instant motion,

the Court’s review is limited to the allegations pled in the complaint, and the Court will not consider

documents submitted for the purpose of establishing a factual dispute.

2

 This claim is alleged against both UC Regents and defendant Dolan. Although Dolan did not

join in the UC Regents’ motion, in the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation plaintiff would be welladvised to include additional allegations concerning defendant Dolan in the amended complaint. 

2

harassment and discrimination, as well as the officials’ response to such information.1 See generally

Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 276, 290 (1998) (discussing elements of Title IX claim

necessary for damages). 

2. Sixth Cause of Action for Section 1981 Race Discrimination

Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action generally alleges that defendants are liable for race

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff’s claim is too vague to provide defendants fair notice

of her claim, and accordingly the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for a more definite statement.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall include more specific factual allegations regarding defendants’

intentional discrimination on the basis of race, and how such discrimination has interfered with

plaintiff’s rights “to make and enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981.2

 In addition, plaintiff shall only

replead the § 1981 claim if she is alleging discrimination based on race and not national origin. See St.

Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987).

3. Seventh Cause of Action for Disability Discrimination

Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action alleges that defendants are liable for disability discrimination

under the American Disabilities Act. The complaint does not specify whether she is filing suit under

Title I or II of the ADA, although plaintiff’s opposition states that she intends to proceed under Title

II. In addition, although the complaint states that the claim is brought under the ADA, the complaint

cites to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. FAC ¶ 39. 

Assuming that plaintiff intended to allege a claim under Title II, plaintiff has failed to allege

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 The Court notes that Title II applies to public entities. The complaint sues defendant Dolan

in his individual capacity; if plaintiff intends to sue Dolan under the ADA, the amended complaint must

cite authority allowing her to state such a claim against Dolan.

3

sufficient facts to support such a claim against defendant UC Regents.3 See generally Lovell v.

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating elements of Title II claim). Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS defendant’s motion with leave to amend. The amended complaint shall, inter alia,

clarify under which statute (and title) plaintiff is proceeding, identify plaintiff’s disability, and include

allegations concerning how defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her disability. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's

motion and DISMISSES the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action against defendant UC Regents

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth,

eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth causes of action against defendant UC Regents WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. (Docket No. 15). 

Defendant Dolan has failed to re-notice the motion to dismiss filed on May 15, 2006. (Docket

No. 7). Accordingly, the Court DENIES this motion without prejudice to renewal. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by August 18, 2006. Defendants’ response to the

complaint must be filed by August 28, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01503-SI Document 37 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 3