Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03569/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03569-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

CHRISTINA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RAVENSWOOD CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, CHARLIE KNIGHT, MACK

MCCLENDON, FLOYD GONELLA, and

DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03569 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this employment-discrimination action, Ravenswood City Unified School District

(“Ravenswood”) and Charlie Knight have moved to dismiss various claims of plaintiff’s second

amended complaint. No opposition was filed. This order GRANTS defendants’ motion to

dismiss, but DENIES the request for attorney’s fees.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Christina Miller alleges that while she was employed by Ravenswood, she was

sexually harassed by defendant Mack McClendon. Defendants Charlie Knight and Floyd

Gonella were allegedly unresponsive when she complained about McClendon’s behavior. She

further alleges that she was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated. In addition, plaintiff

claims she suffered a work-related injury and was refused accommodation. She has received a

right-to-sue letter in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2000e.

Case 3:04-cv-03569-WHA Document 47 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

Plaintiff alleges five causes of action in her second amended complaint: (1) tortious

termination, specifically Title VII, ADA, FMLA, and Rehabilitation Act violations by

Ravenswood and FEHA, FLSA and Worker’s Compensation Appeals Act violations by “the

employer,” although it is unclear whether this is also a reference to Ravenswood; (2) conspiracy

by defendants McClendon, Knight and Gonella in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986;

(3) sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and California Government Code §§ 12940 et.

seq.; (4) retaliation and harassment causing emotional distress; and (5) disability discrimination

in violation of Title II of the American Disabilities Act and Section 132(a) of the California

Worker’s Compensation Appeals Act.

This motion to dismiss raises the exact same issues which were asserted in defendants’

two previous motions. Defendants Ravenswood and Knight argue that plaintiff’s state law

causes of action should be dismissed with prejudice because the second amended complaint still

fails to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement of the California Tort

Claims Act. Defendant Knight also argues that the second amended complaint fails to reflect

that the Court’s previous orders dismissed the Title VII, ADA, and FEHA claims against her

with prejudice. Because counsel declined to stipulate to resolve these issues, defendants also

move for an award of $507.50 in attorney’s fees for filing this motion (Shupe Decl. ¶ 3). In

addition, defendants move for terminating sanctions, requesting dismissal of the entire action

with prejudice should these pleading defects be repeated in the next amended complaint (Br. 7).

Although the deadline for filing was May 26, 2005, plaintiff has not filed an opposition

to this motion, despite repeated warnings that untimely submissions will not be considered.

ANALYSIS

The primary issue in dispute is whether plaintiff complied with the claims presentation

requirements set forth by California Government Code §§ 900 et. seq. The purpose of the

claims presentation requirement is to provide the public entity with sufficient information to

enable it to adequately investigate potential claims against it. At a minimum this requires that

individuals “describe the existence of a claim that if not paid or otherwise resolved will result in

litigation.” Phillips v. Desert Hosp. Dist., 780 P.2d 349, 353–54 (Cal. 1989).

Case 3:04-cv-03569-WHA Document 47 Filed 06/01/05 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

Here, plaintiff has appended to the second amended complaint (1) her claim for workers’

compensation benefits related to her back injury; (2) a letter to the Deputy Labor

Commissioner, complaining that her short-term disability check had not been mailed to her; and

(3) a memorandum to her supervisor requesting the presence of “at least one other person” in

her future interactions with defendant McClendon, after an incident when he yelled at her

during a staff meeting (Miller Decl. Exhs. A–C). None of these documents sufficiently describe

plaintiff’s claims or her intent to litigate if these claims were not otherwise resolved.

Accordingly, this order finds that plaintiff did not substantially comply with California

Government Code §§ 910 and 910.2. Nor does any document submitted by plaintiff as an

exhibit to her second amended complaint qualify as a “defective claim,” which would have

triggered defendants’ obligation to give notice of insufficiency pursuant to California

Government Code §§ 910.8–911.

CONCLUSION

In summary, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s first and fourth

claims, asserting state law causes of action, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In addition, to

the extent that the second amended complaint does not already clarify that plaintiff’s claims

under Title VII, ADA, Rehabilitation Act and FEHA are alleged only against defendant

Ravenswood, the Court stresses that these claims have already been DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE with respect to the individual defendants by previous order. 

Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees, however, is DENIED. Because this order does

not grant plaintiff leave to amend, defendants’ request for terminating sanctions if the dismissed

claims are raised in a further amended complaint is RENDERED MOOT. The hearing on this

motion, currently scheduled for JUNE 16, 2005, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03569-WHA Document 47 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3