Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02369/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02369-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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 

14 MA Y - 9 Ali 9: .. I 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WALTERM. SHAW, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

VETERANS HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION' VA SAN 

DIEGO HEALTHCAkE SYSTEM; 

SAN DIEGO VA MEDICAL 

CENTER' DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFF-1!~~~ and OFFICE 

OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 12-cv-2369-BEN (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

[Docket No. 36] 

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Lack 

ofJurisdiction filed by the United States on behalf ofthe above-named Defendants. 

(Docket No. 36). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 28, 2012. (Docket No.1). An 

Amended Complaint was filed on October 24, 2012. (Docket No.4). Defendants' 

Motion to Dismiss was granted on December 18, 2013. (Docket No. 28). This Court 

dismissed Plaintiffs claim for retirement benefits on the grounds that this Court lacked 

jurisdiction over the claim. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffwas informed that he was required to 

pursue administrative remedies, and that any appeal ofthe administrative decision must 

be to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Id. ) This Court dismissed the 

remainder ofPlaintiffs claim due to a failure to make a short and plain statement ofthe 

- 1 - 12cv2369 

Case 3:12-cv-02369-BEN-NLS Document 39 Filed 05/09/14 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 

claim which demonstrated that he was entitled to relief. (Id. at 6-7). The Court noted 

that the Complaint was lengthy, confusing, redundant, and disorganized. (Id.). The 

Court concluded that it failed to give Defendants fair notice of what claims he was 

asserting and what relief he sought. (Id.) 

Plaintifffiled a Second Amended Complaint on February 18,2014. (Docket No. 

32). Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendants as a "fee-basis physician." 

(Id. ~ 3). He contends that he was misclassified as an "independent contractor" in 

order to avoid the payment ofcertain benefits. (Id. ~~ 24-26). He also claims that he 

was not given complete and accurate wage statements. (Id. ~ 28). Plaintiffs Second 

Amended Complaint states claims for Violation ofCalifornia Labor Code section 226, 

unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code sections 

17200 et seq., and failure to pay overtime wages in violation ofCalifornia Labor Code 

sections 510, 1194, and 1198. 

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack 

ofJurisdiction on March 4,2014. (Docket No. 36). The matter was originally set for 

oral argument on May 5, 2014. Plaintiff attempted to file a response, but this Court 

rejected the filing because Plaintiff did not attach a proof ofservice. (Docket No. 38). 

Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he has previously complied with the 

requirement that the opposing party be properly served and that proof of service be 

submitted to the Court. This Court continued the hearing date two weeks, to May 19, 

2014, in an effort to give Plaintiff additional time to properly serve his opposition 

paperwork. Plaintiff has not attempted to file new opposition documents, has not 

submitted a proof ofservice, and has not requested an extension ofdeadlines from this 

Court. 

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1 (f)(3 )( c), an opposing party's failure to file the papers 

as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1 ( e )(2) "may constitute a consent to the granting of 

[the] motion." On the basis ofPlaintiffs failure to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1 (e )(2), therefore, the 

-2- 12cv2369 

Case 3:12-cv-02369-BEN-NLS Document 39 Filed 05/09/14 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 

Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants is GRANTED. 

However, this Court has also carefully examined the Second Amended 

Complaint, and concludes that dismissal is appropriate in this case. Plaintiffs claims 

are barred by sovereign immunity. The United States is immune from suit, except to 

the extent that it consents to be sued. E.g., United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 

(1980). Any waiver of that immunity from suit "cannot be implied but must be 

unequivocally expressed." Id. (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1,3 (1969)). 

Defendants point out that the United States has not expressly waived sovereign 

immunity for the state law claims raised by Plaintiff. Thus, although this Court might 

normally have subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter because it seeks damages 

from the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346, this Court nonetheless lacks jurisdiction 

because the United States has not agreed to be sued for these causes of action. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court may close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Y 

Dated: May {L, 2014 

3- 12cv2369 

Case 3:12-cv-02369-BEN-NLS Document 39 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 3