Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01655-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITCHARD MOLINA, No. 2:11-cv-01655-MCE-DAD 

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTH CARE, an

unknown business entity;

EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTH CARE

FOUNDATION, INC., a California

Corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Ritchard Molina (“Plaintiff”) initiated this

disability discrimination action against Defendants Eastern

Plumas Health Care and Eastern Plumas Health Care Foundation,

Inc., on June 17, 2011. 

///

///

///

///

///

1

Case 2:11-cv-01655-MCE-DAD Document 9 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 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

Defendant Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (erroneously sued as

Eastern Plumas Health Care) (hereafter “Defendant”) has since

moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s fifth through tenth causes of action

for failure to comply with the claims presentment requirements of

the California Government Claims Act (“GCA”). Defendant’s 1

Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as moot. 

2

First, Plaintiff concedes his ninth and tenth causes of

action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and

for intentional infliction of emotional distress are subject to

the GCA. Opposition, 1:17-18, n.1. He does not oppose the

instant Motion as to those causes of action. Id. Defendant’s

Motion is thus granted with leave to amend as to those claims. 

Similarly, in opposition, Defendant concedes that

Plaintiff’s remaining fifth through eighth claims “are sufficient

and not subject to dismissal for his failure to comply with the

claim presentation requirements of the [GCA].” Reply, 1:20-23. 

Defendant thus withdraws its Motion as to those claims. Id.,

4:13-15. Since Defendant has withdrawn its Motion as to these

causes of action, there is no longer a live controversy before

the Court. However, for the sake of clarity, the Court will deny

Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s fifth through eighth causes

of action as moot. 

 Though the parties refer to the relevant law as the “Tort 1

Claims Act,” since 2007 the California Supreme Court has used the

title “Government Claims Act.” See City of Stockton v. Superior

Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (2007). This Court will do the

same. 

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 2

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

2

Case 2:11-cv-01655-MCE-DAD Document 9 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 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

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is

GRANTED with leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s ninth and tenth

causes of action and denied as moot as to Plaintiff’s fifth,

sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action. Not later than

twenty (20) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is

electronically filed, Plaintiff may (but is not required to) file

an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is filed within

said twenty (20)-day period, without further notice to the

parties, those causes of action dismissed by virtue of this Order

will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2011

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-01655-MCE-DAD Document 9 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 3