Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02606/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02606-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE STRIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-2606-YGR 

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

Re: Dkt. No. 44

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE 

FOLLOWING:

Having reviewed the papers submitted and the pleadings, the Court tentatively rules as 

follows on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 44):

1. Dismissal Uncontested: Plaintiff states in her opposition to the motion that she 

does not contest the dismissal of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, Fifteenth, 

Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth or Thirty-Seventh (as to 

the individual defendants) Causes of Action. Additionally, the Court construes 

plaintiff’s acknowledgment that employees may not be liable for “failure to 

prevent claims” under Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12490 et seq. (Dkt. No. 51 at 34), in 

conjunction with her silence on the viability of the Twentieth and Twenty-First 

Causes of Action, to be a concession that she cannot maintain those claims. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss these causes of action is tentatively 

GRANTED.

2. Sovereign Immunity (First 36 Causes of Action): Defendants argue that sovereign 

immunity bars the first thirty-six causes of action because they are sued in their 

official – and not personal/individual – capacities. The Court disagrees. The SAC 

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 56 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

explicitly states that plaintiff sues the defendants in their individual capacities 

(SAC ¶¶ 15-17) and therefore sovereign immunity does not apply. Alden v. Maine, 

527 U.S. 706, 757 (sovereign immunity does not bar suit for money damages 

against a state officer in his individual capacity “for unconstitutional or wrongful 

conduct fairly attributable to the officer himself, so long as the relief is sought not 

from the state treasury but from the officer personally.”) The Court also declines 

defendants’ suggestion that the Court should effectively disregard those words and 

construe the complaint against plaintiff. The motion to dismiss on this basis is 

tentatively DENIED.

3. Qualified Immunity (First 36 Causes of Action): Defendants argue that qualified 

immunity bars the first thirty-six causes of action against the individual 

defendants. Because the Court tentatively dismisses the balance of plaintiff’s 

claims for the reasons described below, it only addresses defendants’ qualified 

immunity defense with respect to the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Nineteenth Causes 

of Action. The Court tentatively agrees with plaintiff that the SAC alleges she was

subject to adverse employment actions motivated by her race and/or by the 

individual defendants’ knowledge that she filed complaints based on that same 

discriminatory behavior. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 158, 164, 182, 183, 295, 321, 411, 

422). Therefore, the pleadings do not support a qualified immunity defense at this 

juncture, and the Court tentatively DENIES the motion on this ground without 

prejudice.

4. Misrepresentation (Eighteenth Cause of Action): Defendant Peterson moves to 

dismiss the misrepresentation claim on three independent grounds, namely that: (i)

the SAC does not plead fraud, corruption, or malice sufficient to overcome his 

immunity under California Government Code section 822.2; (ii) his statements are 

entitled to privileged status under California Civil Code section 47(b)(3); and (iii) 

he is entitled to co-employee immunity, relying on Sheppard v. Freeman, 67 

Cal.App. 4th 339, 347 (1998). Defendant’s first and third arguments do not 

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 56 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

persuade. However, the gravamen of the allegations stem from defendant’s 

conduct during the course of official investigations, and are therefore privileged. 

Cal. Gov. Code § 47(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court tentatively GRANTS

defendant’s motion to dismiss the Eighteenth Cause of Action on that basis.

5. Conspiracy (Thirty-Third and Thirty-Fourth Causes of Action): Defendants argue 

that plaintiff has not alleged the four elements necessary to state a conspiracy 

claim. Defendants contend, and the Court tentatively agrees, that the SAC fails to

allege with any plausibility both that the conspiracy existed and that defendants 

engaged in any overt acts in furtherance thereof. Thus, the Court tentatively 

GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss the conspiracy claims.

6. Statute of Limitations Defense: Defendants argue that the remaining causes of 

action1are time-barred because they allege violations of law subject to a two-year 

statute of limitation. Plaintiff concedes the applicable limitation period is two 

years, but presents three doctrines by which she claims her causes of action 

nevertheless survive: (1) the continuing violations doctrine; (2) equitable estoppel 

due to defendants’ fraudulent concealment; and (3) equitable tolling during the 

pendency of plaintiff’s administrative proceedings. The Court tentatively finds 

these three doctrines inapplicable under the circumstances, and therefore

tentatively GRANTS defendants’ motion as to these claims.

Under this tentative ruling, the following causes of action would remain: (i) retaliation in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against all individual defendants (Second, Sixth, and Tenth Causes of 

Action); and (ii) hostile work environment under California Government Code section 

 

1 Namely, defendants move to dismiss as time-barred the causes of action for: (1) 

violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, Twelfth, 

Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, Twenty-Sixth, TwentySeventh, Twenty-Eighth, Twenty-Ninth, Thirtieth Causes of Action); intentional infliction of 

emotional distress (Thirty-First Cause of Action); negligent infliction of emotional distress 

(Thirty-Second Cause of Action); and violations under 42 U.S.C. section 2000d (Thirty-Seventh 

Cause of Action). Defendants also move to dismiss the conspiracy claims (Thirty-Third and 

Thirty-Fourth Causes of Action) as time barred, but the Court otherwise tentatively disposes of 

those claims as described above.

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 56 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

12490(h)(1) against defendant Peterson (Nineteenth Cause of Action).

If both sides submit to this tentative ruling, then the August 18, 2015 hearing will be taken 

off calendar and a comprehensive order shall issue. The parties shall advise the Court of this 

decision no later than noon on Monday, August 17, 2015 by filing a joint statement. Otherwise 

the hearing will be held as scheduled on August 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 56 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 4