Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00877-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

TAJAI CALIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00877-SI 

ORDER RE: MOTIONS SCHEDULED 

FOR SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 HEARING

Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and plaintiff's motion for 

judgment on the pleadings are scheduled for a hearing on September 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. The 

Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings as the Court has yet to determine 

whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, or whether plaintiff has stated a 

claim.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint "(SAC") argues that this 

Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination because the SAC does 

not allege the dates of plaintiff's employment nor does it allege that plaintiff filed a timely charge 

of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") prior to filing 

this lawsuit. See Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 2002) ("To establish federal 

subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff is required to exhaust his or her administrative remedies 

before seeking adjudication of a Title VII claim."). 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. 

The Court has reviewed the SAC as well as the original and first amended complaints. The 

original complaint alleged that plaintiff was wrongfully terminated on or about January 20, 2010, 

Compl. ¶ 8, and the first amended complaint ("FAC") alleged that the discrimination occurred 

Case 3:15-cv-00877-SI Document 36 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
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

between approximately 2008 and 2010. FAC ¶ 6. Although the FAC did not allege when 

plaintiff filed an administrative charge with the EEOC, the FAC alleged that "the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue letter (copy attached), 

which was received by me on or about Approx. 2010-2011." Id. ¶ 9. However, the Notice-ofRight-to-Sue letter attached to the FAC is dated March 24, 2015. Id. Ex. 1. 

At the September 4, 2015 hearing, plaintiff should be prepared to address (1) when the 

alleged discrimination occurred; (2) whether plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC regarding that 

discrimination, and if so when, and when did plaintiff receive a Notice-of-Right-to-Sue letter; and 

(3) whether the March 24, 2015 Notice-of-Right-to-Sue letter relates to the matters alleged in the 

SAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00877-SI Document 36 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2