Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04869/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04869-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:754 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DE’MARIO GRANT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;

FINE ARTS MUSEUMS OF SAN FRANCISCO;

CORPORATION OF FINE ARTS MUSEUMS,

severally and as joint employers; HUGO GRAY;

CHARLES CASTILLO; and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-04869 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this employment action, defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons

discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

The following facts are taken from the first amended complaint. In late 2010, the City

and County of San Francisco hired plaintiff De’Mario Grant to work as a museum guard for

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. At all relevant times Grant was an individual with

physical disabilities, and in 2015, he submitted a request for intermittent leave under the

Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act. Grant now alleges numerous

adverse employment actions as a result of this request (First Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 20, 23, 26).

Case 3:17-cv-04869-WHA Document 43 Filed 03/01/18 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 * Crevillo’s name is spelled inconsistently throughout plaintiff’s complaint and opposition. It appears

as both “Sabina Crivello” and “Sabrina Crevillo.” This order will spell her name as it first appears in the

complaint.

2

The complaint names as defendants the City, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco,

the Corporation of Fine Arts Museums (“Corporation”), as well as individual defendants. 

The parties agree the Fine Arts Museums and the Corporation are separate entities, but the

complaint is unclear regarding their relationship to each other and to Grant. The complaint

alleges that both the City and the Corporation have some degree of control over the terms and

conditions of plaintiff’s employment, and alleges adverse employment actions by Corporation

employee Sabina Crevillo. She is also described as an executive assistant to defendant Charlie

Castillo, the City’s human resources director (First Amd. Compl. ¶ 24).*

ANALYSIS

The Corporation argues Grant has not sufficiently stated a claim against it. This order

agrees for the following reasons.

1. MOTION TO DISMISS.

Grant concedes the first amended complaint (1) fails to identify the Corporation as a

party against whom any claim for relief is brought, (2) fails to list the Corporation as a party in

the “Parties and Jurisdiction” section, and (3) fails to allege that the Corporation is an employer

subject to the FMLA and CFRA. These omissions alone, the Corporation argues, are fatal to

Grant’s claims. Grant offers no argument why these omissions do not justify dismissal, only

that they were made “inadvertently” (Opp. 2).

As an additional ground for dismissal, the Corporation argues it is not Grant’s joint

employer. Businesses may be considered joint employers under the FMLA where two or

more businesses exercise some control over the work or working conditions of the employee. 

29 C.F.R. § 825.106(a). Grant’s allegation that “both the City and [the Corporation] have some

degree of control over the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment,” is a mere legal

conclusion, and is deficient absent supporting factual allegations. Grant argues that Crevillo’s

actions support his allegation that the Corporation is his joint employer. The complaint is

unclear, however, as to whether Crevillo’s actions were performed in her capacity as an

Case 3:17-cv-04869-WHA Document 43 Filed 03/01/18 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

employee of the Corporation, or as the executive assistant to the City’s human resources

director.

This order concludes the first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted against the Corporation. Accordingly, the Corporation’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED.

2. LEAVE TO AMEND.

Grant requests leave amend his complaint and attaches a redlined version of a proposed

amended complaint. This order does not reach this request. Grant may file a separate motion

for leave to amend, to be heard on a normal 35-day track, as described below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for

judicial notice is not relied upon in this order and DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff may seek leave

to amend the complaint and will have until MARCH 22, 2018, to file a motion, noticed on the

normal 35-day track, for leave to file an amended complaint. The motion must include a

proposed amended complaint (and a redlined copy) and must clearly explain how the

amendments to the complaint cure the deficiencies identified herein. Plaintiff must plead

his best case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-04869-WHA Document 43 Filed 03/01/18 Page 3 of 3