Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02201/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02201-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LLOYD MASON,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-2201 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS IN PART AND DENYING

AMBROSE RECREATION AND PARK IT IN PART

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first and third through eighth causes of action for

failure to state a claim came on for hearing before this court on August 4, 2010. Plaintiff

appeared by his counsel R. Ernest Montanari, and defendants appeared by their counsel

Carrie A. Frederickson. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their

arguments, and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion in part

and DENIES it in part, as follows and for the reasons stated at the hearing.

In his opposition to the motion, plaintiff stated that he was withdrawing the third and

fourth causes of action, and plaintiff’s counsel confirmed at the hearing that plaintiff

intended to dismiss those two causes of action. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to

those claims.

With regard to the motion to dismiss the first cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, the motion is GRANTED. The dismissal is with LEAVE TO AMEND, to clarify that

the sole allegation under this cause of action is that plaintiff’s procedural due process rights

were violated; to plead facts stating a claim for a procedural due process violation, as to

each defendant; and as to defendant Ambrose Recreation and Park District (“Ambrose”), to

allege a claim under Monell v. v. New York City Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

 With regard to the motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action under California Labor

Code § 98.6 for failure to state a claim the motion is GRANTED. The dismissal is with

Case 4:10-cv-02201-PJH Document 18 Filed 08/05/10 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

LEAVE TO AMEND, to clarify which rights protected under which provision of the Labor

Code provide a basis for this claim; and also to clarify that plaintiff is not asserting a claim

of First Amendment violations under the guise of the § 98.6 claim. As for the question

whether the claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by

filing a claim with the Department of Labor, the motion is DENIED. The law appears to be

unsettled; moreover, the court is more persuaded by the reasoning in Lloyd v. County of

Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 4th 320 (2009).

With regard to the motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action for breach of contract,

and the seventh cause of action for breach of the implied covenant for failure to state a

claim, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED,

WITH PREJUDICE, to the extent that the complaint asserts the existence of an express

contract. The motion is DENIED with regard to any claim of breach of implied contract, or

the claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

With regard to the eighth cause of action for respondeat superior, the motion is

GRANTED, WITH PREJUDICE. Respondeat superior is not an independent cause of

action – rather, it is a doctrine or theory of liability, under which, for example, and employer

may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employees. See Hollinger v. Titan Capital

Corp., 914 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.28 (9th Cir. 1990).

Finally, with regard to the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages as to

Ambrose, the motion is GRANTED, WITH PREJUDICE. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 818.

As stated at the hearing, any amended complaint shall be filed no later than

September 3, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-02201-PJH Document 18 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2