Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02992/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02992-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 1 

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

JAMES K. WARD, ESQ. (SBN 117639) 

DANIEL P. JAY, ESQ. (SBN 215860) 

EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP 

745 University Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 956825 

Tel: (916)923-1600 

Fax: (916)923-1616 

Attorneys for Defendant(s) 

CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY SRVICES DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Eastern District of California 

Sacramento Division 

TAMMY MEFFORD, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 vs. 

CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY 

SERVICES DISTRICT, a public entity; 

ALAN CLARKE, an individual; DAVID M. 

JOHNSON, an individual and; KENNETH E. 

CATER an individual 

 Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 2:09-CV-02992 JAM-KGM 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ (CAMERON 

PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES 

DISTRICT, DAVID JOHNSON, ALAN 

CLARKE)MOTIONS TO DISMISS [FRCP 

12(b)(6)] 

Date; June 30, 2010 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Dept.: 6 

Before the Honorable John Mendez 

The respective Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss by 

Defendants, Cameron Park Community Services District, David M. Johnson and Alan Clarke 

and David M. Johnson’s and Alan Clarke’s Motions for a More Definite Statement came on for 

hearing in Department 6 on June 30, 2010. Michael Ahmad appeared on behalf of Plaintiff 

Tammy Mefford. James K. Ward appeared on behalf of Cameron Park Community Services 

District. Domenic Spinelli appeared on behalf of David M. Johnson. Derek Haynes appeared on 

behalf of Alan Clarke. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 2 

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

After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties, the Court rules 

as follows: 

As to the third cause of action for Retaliation in Violation of Plaintiff’s Right to Free 

Speech, the claim requires a five-step analysis: 

1. The Court needs to determine whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public 

concern. 

2. Whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or public employee. 

3. Whether the plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the 

adverse employment action. 

4. Whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently 

from other members of the public. 

5. Whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the 

protected speech. (Eng v. Cooley (2009 9th Cir.) 552 F.3d 1062, 1070.) 

Plaintiff bears the burden of showing the speech was spoken in the capacity of a private 

citizen and not a public employee. (Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) 547 U.S. 410.) Statements are 

made in the speaker’s capacity as a citizen if the speaker had no official duty to make the 

questioned statements, or if the speech was not the product of performing the tasks the employee 

was paid to perform. 

“When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees 

are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not 

insulate their communications from employer discipline.” (Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) 547 U.S. 

410, 421.) 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 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

In the case before the Court, the First Amended Complaint contains no allegations that 

she was retaliated against for statements she made as a private citizen. The First Amended 

Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s statements were made in the scope of her employment as the 

general manager of CPCSD. For example, paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint 

contains an allegation that Plaintiff tried to personally address her workplace concerns and 

warned the directors and Mr. Biegler that she would not tolerate harassment and inappropriate 

treatment of her female staff members. 

There is no question from the allegations in the First Amended Complaint that they were, 

in fact, made as part of Plaintiff’s job responsibilities as the general manager of CPCSD. She 

was clearly acting as a public employee when the statements were made, and because of that, 

there was no protected speech that led to an adverse employment action. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ (Cameron Park Community Services District, David Johnson 

and Alan Clarke) Motions to Dismiss the 3rd cause of action are granted. The Court also grants 

the motions to dismiss with prejudice. The Court finds that there is no basis for maintaining this 

claim. There is no evidence before the Court or any allegations raised during the oral argument 

that convinces the Court that this claim could be amended and therefore maintained. Allowing 

leave to amend would be futile as a matter of law. Thus, the Court grants the motions to dismiss 

with prejudice. 

On the motions filed by Defendants Johnson and Clarke for a more definite statement as 

to the 11th cause of action for conversion, the Court grants the motions with 20 days leave to 

amend. The Complaint needs to include as best it can the date and time and the property that 

was allegedly converted. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 3 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 4 

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

The motion filed by Cameron Park Community Services District to dismiss the 12th cause 

of action for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is denied. Plaintiff has 

alleged enough to maintain this claim. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 102.) 

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motions to Dismiss the 3rd cause of action for Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Speech 

which were brought by Defendants Cameron Park Community Services District, David Johnson 

and Alan Clarke are granted without leave to amend. The Motions for a More Definite 

Statement filed by Defendants Johnson and Clarke against the 11th cause of action for conversion 

are granted with leave to amend. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to 

Dismiss filed by Cameron Park Community Services District against the 12th cause of action is 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 4 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 5 

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

Approved as to form: 

Dated: July 15, 2010 EVANS WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP 

 

 By: /s/ James K. Ward

 James K. Ward 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY 

 SERVICES DISTRICT 

Dated: July 15, 2010 Law Offices of Mary-Alice Coleman 

 By: /s/Michael Ahmad

 Michael Ahmad 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 TAMMY MEFFORD 

Dated: July 15, 2010 LAPLANTE SPINELLY & DONALD 

 By: /s/Domenic Spinelli

 Domenic Spinelli 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 DAVID M. JOHNSON 

Dated: July 15, 2010 PORTER SCOTT 

 By: /s/Carl L. Fessenden

 Carl L. Fessenden 

 Derek J. Haynes 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ALAN CLARKE 

 

 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 5 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 6 

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

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b)] 

 [CCP ''1011, 1012, 1012.5, 1013 and 1013a] 

I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or 

interested in the within-entitled case. I am an employee of EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, 

LLP, and my business address is 745 University Avenue, Sacramento, California 95825. 

On this date, I served the following document: 

__x_ by causing a true copy thereof to be delivered to the party or parties at the address(es) 

 listed below, by and/or through the services of: 

 __x_ Electronic Mail 

Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman 

Mary-Alice Coleman 

Thomas B. Gill 

1109 Kennedy Place, Suite #2 

Davis, CA 95616 

T: (916)498-9131 

F: (916)304-0880 

MailTo:info@lawofficemac.com

Domenic Spinelli 

Laplante Spinelli & Donald 

815 S Street 2 Fl 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

T: (916)448-7888 

F: (916)448-6888 

MailTo:domenics@lsdnlaw.com

 Anthony Diepenbrock 

 DIEPENBROCK & COTTER 

 1545 River Park Dr., #201 

 Sacramento, CA 95815 

 T: (916)565-6222 

 F: (916)565-6220 

 MailTo:td@diepenbrockcotter.com

William Schmidt 

William Schmidt and Associates 

1419 21st Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814

T: (916)447-2451

F: (916)447-8066

MailTo:wschmidt@wschmidtandassociates.co

m

Carl L. Fessenden, Esq. 

PORTER SCOTT 

350 University Ave., Ste. 200 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

MailTo:cfessenden@porterscott.com

I am familiar with the business practice of EVANS, WIECKOWSKI & WARD, LLP, 

with regard to collection and processing of documents for mailing with the United States Postal 

Service. The documents described above were sealed and placed for collection and mailing on 

the date stated below. Pursuant to said business practices, documents were deposited with the 

United States Postal Service in Sacramento, California, that same day in the ordinary course of 

business. 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 6 of 7
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS- 7 

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

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this 

Declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on March____, 2010. 

_____________________________ 

 Andrea Cervantes 

 

Case 2:09-cv-02992-JAM -KJM Document 76 Filed 07/16/10 Page 7 of 7