Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04292/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04292-15/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRETA ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04292 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

Defendant American Airlines moves for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Greta

Anderson’s third claim for relief. The motion is scheduled for hearing on February 1, 2008. Pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument,

and hereby VACATES the hearing. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers

submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings.

Plaintiff’s third claim for relief alleges that defendant violated the Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal.

Civ. Code § 52.1, when defendant directed plaintiff to cease contacting Dr. Robert S. Brown. Dr.

Brown had conducted a psychiatric evaluation of plaintiff, and plaintiff had sought to obtain Dr.

Brown’s reports and findings from the evaluation. In order for speech to violate the Act, the speech

must threaten violence against a specific person and that person must be put in reasonable fear that the

threatened violence will be committed. See Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1(j). Defendant argues that there could

not have been a violation of § 52.1 because plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that defendant

threatened any violence against plaintiff. Plaintiff concedes this point, and has filed a statement of nonopposition to defendant’s motion. See Plaintiff’s Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion for Judgment

Case 3:05-cv-04292-SI Document 71 Filed 01/28/08 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

on the Pleadings, Docket No. 69. In light of plaintiff’s non-opposition, and because defendant’s

argument appears sound, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to

plaintiff’s 

third claim for relief [Docket No. 68]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 28,2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04292-SI Document 71 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2