Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00371-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

JAMES C. SANCHEZ, City Attorney 

CITY OF FRESNO 

By: Tina R. Griffin, Deputy (#210328) 

2600 Fresno Street 

Fresno, California 93721-3602 

Telephone: (559) 621-7500 

Facsimile: (559) 488-1084 

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL KAUNDART, 

AND CHRIS DICK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEANETTE HOWELL, an individual 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF FRESNO; CAPTAIN PAT 

RHAMES; SERGEANT EARL KAUNDART; 

CHRIS DICK; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00371-OWW-NEW(TAG)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Date: April 23, 2007 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtm: 3 

Senior U.S. District Judge Oliver W. 

Wanger 

The motions of Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL 

KAUNDART, AND CHRIS DICK (“Defendants”), for dismissal, or alternatively more definite 

statement, and motion to strike, came on regularly for hearing on April 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in 

the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, Senior U.S. District Judge, presiding. 

Appearing as counsel were Tina R. Griffin of the CITY OF FRESNO on behalf of Defendants, and 

Morris S. Getzels of the Law Office of Morris S. Getzels on behalf of Plaintiff, JEANETTE 

HOWELL (“Plaintiff”). 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 45 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 5
After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition of the motions, and the 

arguments of counsel at the hearing on the motions, the Court finds that Defendants, CITY OF 

FRESNO, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL KAUNDART, AND CHRIS DICK’s motions are 

granted to dismiss and to strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and every cause of action 

contained therein, on the following grounds: 

A. All Defendants 

 1. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff failed 

to exhaust her administrative remedies with either the California Department of Fair Employment 

and Housing (“DFEH”) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). 

 2. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff failed 

to exhaust her administrative remedies with either the California Department of Fair Employment 

and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

 3. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the action is barred by the statute of 

limitations. 

 4. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the action is barred by the statute of 

limitations. 

 5. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the third cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the above-referenced Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the claim. 

 6. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the fourth cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the above-referenced Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over the claim. 

 7. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the third cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff fails to state claims under the 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 45 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 5
action. 

 8. As to all Defendants, to dismiss the fourth cause of action pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff fails to state claims under the 

action. 

B. Defendants Captain Rhames 

 1. As to Defendant, Captain Rhames, to dismiss all four causes of actions 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such claims for 

discrimination cannot be asserted against an individual employee. 

C. Defendants Earl Kaundart

 1. As to Defendant, Earl Kaundart, to dismiss all four causes of actions 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such claims for 

discrimination cannot be asserted against an individual employee. 

D. Defendants Chris Dick

 1. As to Defendant, Chris Dick, to dismiss all four causes of actions pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such claims for discrimination cannot 

be asserted against an individual employee. 

 2. As to Defendant, Chris Dick, to dismiss the first cause of action pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the DFEH or EEOC. 

 3. As to Defendant, Chris Dick, to dismiss the second cause of action pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the DFEH or EEOC. 

E. Motion to Strike 

 1. As to all Defendants, to strike any and all DFEH and Title VII claims 

asserted by Plaintiff occurring more than one year prior to the filing of his administrative complaint 

with the DFEH or EEOC pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because 

they are barred by the statute of limitations. 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 45 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 5
 2. As to all Defendants, to strike paragraphs 23-30 of the First Amended 

Complaint because Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. 

 3. As to all Defendants, to strike Plaintiff’s request, “[f]or interest on the sum of 

damages awarded, calculated from January 27, 2006 to the date of judgment,” pursuant to Rule 

12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the latter italicized part is equivalent to a 

claim for prejudgment interest under California Civil Code §3291 which prohibits application to 

public entities or employees. 

 4. As to Defendant, Captain Pat Rhames, to strike any and all allegations 

asserting individual liability pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because 

such claims for discrimination cannot be asserted against individual employees. All references to 

“Defendants” should refer only to the entity, “City of Fresno.” 

 5. As to Defendant, Earl Kaundart, to strike any and all allegations asserting 

individual liability pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such 

claims for discrimination cannot be asserted against individual employees. All references to 

“Defendants” should refer only to the entity, “City of Fresno.” 

 6. As to Defendant, Chris Dick, to strike any and all allegations asserting 

individual liability pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because such 

claims for discrimination cannot be asserted against individual employees. All references to 

“Defendants” should refer only to the entity, “City of Fresno.” 

 7. As to Defendant, Captain Pat Rhames, to strike Plaintiff’s request for 

punitive damages, “in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and 

set an example for others (except as to the Defendant City of Fresno).” And to also strike in the 

body of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations that, “[t]he above-recited actions of 

Defendants were all despicable acts done with a wilful intention to injure Plaintiff on in conscious 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under FEHA. Further the refusal to hire Plaintiff was despicable 

conduct that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s 

rights under FEHA,” pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a claim 

for punitive damages for violations of California statutes cannot be pleaded generally. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 45 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 5
 8. As to Defendant, Earl Kaundart, to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive 

damages, “in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and set an 

example for others (except as to the Defendant City of Fresno).” And to also strike in the body of 

the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations that, “[t]he above-recited actions of Defendants 

were all despicable acts done with a wilful intention to injure Plaintiff on in conscious disregard of 

Plaintiff’s rights under FEHA. Further the refusal to hire Plaintiff was despicable conduct that 

subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under 

FEHA,” pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a claim for punitive 

damages for violations of California statutes cannot be pleaded generally. 

 9. As to Defendant, Chris Dick, to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive 

damages, “in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and set an 

example for others (except as to the Defendant City of Fresno).” And to also strike in the body of 

the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations that, “[t]he above-recited actions of Defendants 

were all despicable acts done with a wilful intention to injure Plaintiff on in conscious disregard of 

Plaintiff’s rights under FEHA. Further the refusal to hire Plaintiff was despicable conduct that 

subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under 

FEHA,” pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a claim for punitive 

damages for violations of California statutes cannot be pleaded generally. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: 5/30/2007 By: /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Senior U.S. District Judge 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

TRG:elb [40409elb/trg] 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 45 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 5