Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04697/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04697-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN TAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 06-04697 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STRIKE PUNITIVE

DAMAGES AGAINST THE

REGENTS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Punitive

Damages against the Regents. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, and the record

herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Strike Punitive Damages against the

Regents for the reasons stated herein. 

BACKGROUND

The background of this case is discussed in this Court’s order granting Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(f) provides that a party may ask a court to strike any part of the pleading that

contains an “insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike are commonly used to “strike a prayer for

relief where the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law.” Gay-Straight

Alliance Network v. Visalia Unified School Dist., 262 F. Supp.2d 1088, 1110 (E.D. Cal.

2001)

Case 3:06-cv-04697-TEH Document 43 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 provides "[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not

arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

defendant[s] ha[ve] been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to

the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing

the defendant."

2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the Regents on several causes of action

alleged in her complaint. Defendants contend that the punitive damage allegations against

the Regents should be stricken because they cannot be granted as a matter of law. The Court

agrees with Defendants. 

1. State Claims Against The Regents

With respect to Plaintiff's state claims against the Regents, Government Code § 818

provides that a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under § 3294 of the Civil

Code or other forms of exemplary damages.1

 Cal. Gov't Code § 818. 

It has been widely accepted that a public school and its board is a “public entity”

within the meaning of the statute. Gay-Straight Alliance, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 1111; Barefield

v. Cal. State Univ. Bakersfield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21677, *20 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2006). 

Since punitive damages are primarily designed to punish defendants rather than compensate

plaintiffs, a claim for punitive damages against a school is futile under Government Code §

818. Gay-Straight Alliance, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 1111.

2. Federal Claims Against The Regents

Plaintiff also asserts several causes of action under federal law, including § 1981 for

racial discrimination and the American Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act for disability

discrimination. Government Code § 818 does not apply to Plaintiff's federal claims.

Barefield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21677 at *21. However, the language in Section 1981

itself does not allow for punitive damages against governmental agencies. "A complaining

party may recover punitive damages in this section against a respondent, other than a

government or government agency.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) (emphasis added); see also

Case 3:06-cv-04697-TEH Document 43 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Singleton v. University of California, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 329, *11(N.D. Cal. Jan. 6,

1995).

Additionally, courts have precluded punitive damages against a public entity under

both the Rehabilitation Act and American Disabilities Act. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d

1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2002) (Holding that punitive damages were not available under § 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act); see also Peacock v. Terhune, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1136, *16-17

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2002) (Holding that “because punitive damages are neither consistent

with Congress's clear intent, nor appropriate against public entities, the court follows the

established rule that they are not available under the [American Disabilities Act]”). Thus,

punitive damages against a public entity are unavailable under Section 1981, the ADA, and

the Rehabilitation Act. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Against the Regents is GRANTED. This ruling does not

affect Plaintiff’s punitive damage claim against individual Defendant, Lucy Weir.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 3/28/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-04697-TEH Document 43 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3