Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00498-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANAN H. BOWMAN AND JAMES R. )

HENCIER, ) 2:08-cv-00498-GEB-EFB

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

YOLO COUNTY, a public entity; )

YOLO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND )

ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, a )

public entity; and DOES 1 through )

100, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant Yolo County Housing Authority (“YCHA”) moves to

dismiss the first cause of action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint in which

Plaintiffs allege a claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5

(“Section 1102.5”), arguing this claim should be dismissed “because

Plaintiffs have not alleged that they exhausted their administrative

remedies before the Labor Commissioner prior to filing suit.” (Mot. at

1:26-28.)

Case 2:08-cv-00498-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/23/08 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

2

Plaintiffs were previously employed by Yolo County and YCHA. 

Plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully terminated after they disclosed

purported illegal activity at the YCHA. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11-12.) 

Plaintiffs allege this firing was in retaliation for their disclosures

and therefore violated Section 1102.5, which prohibits employers from

“retaliat[ing] against an employee for disclosing information to a

government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has

reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation

of state or federal statute . . . .” Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5. 

Plaintiffs allege they “have exhausted their administrative remedies

by filing Tort Claims Act claims against Yolo and YCHA . . . .” (Id.

¶ 13.)

YCHA contends Plaintiffs’ allegation of exhaustion is

insufficient because “[a] litigant seeking damages under [Section

1102.5] must exhaust administrative remedies before the Labor

Commissioner prior to bringing suit.” (Mot. at 3:24-27.) Plaintiffs

counter this is not required. (Opp’n 3:6-11.)

Plaintiffs do not allege exhaustion of administrative

remedies in their Complaint. (See Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs argue

that presenting a California Tort Claims Act claim was sufficient to

exhaust their administrative remedies. (Opp’n at 2:6-3:2.) But

“[t]he presentation of a claim pursuant to the Tort Claims Act is a

separate, additional prerequisite to commencing an action against the

state or a local public entity and is not a substitute for the

exhaustion of an administrative remedy.” Richards v. Dep’t of

Alcoholic Beverages Control, 139 Cal. App. 4th 304, 315-316 (2006)

(holding that presentation of a California Tort Claims Act claim did

Case 2:08-cv-00498-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/23/08 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

3

not fulfill the plaintiff’s obligation to exhaust administrative

remedies) (emphasis added).

“Exhaustion of [applicable] administrative remedies is a

jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.” Campbell v.

Regents of Univ. of Cal., 35 Cal. 4th 311, 321 (2005) (quoting Johnson

v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal. 4th 61, 70 (2000)). Therefore,

Plaintiffs must allege they have “either attempted to exhaust [their]

administrative remedies or that [they] should be excused from doing

so” before bringing suit for violation of Section 1102.5. Id. at 333.

Since Plaintiffs fail to allege they have met the exhaustion

of administrative remedies requirement, YHCA’s motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ Section 1102.5 claim is granted. Plaintiffs are granted

ten days leave from the date on which this order is filed to file an

amended Complaint in which the dismissed claim is amended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00498-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 3