Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04073/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04073-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04073-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARC OLIN LEVY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04073-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 23

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Marc Olin Levy (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint in Santa Clara 

County Superior Court against Defendant State Farm, otherwise known as State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Company, after unsuccessfully applying for a sales position with the company. 

Plaintiff seeks $250,000,000 in damages for “pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, 

and loss of consortium” based on the allegation that he was disqualified as a job applicant due to 

his criminal record. State Farm removed the action to this court on September 8, 2014.

Federal jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Presently before the court is State 

Farm’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). 

See Docket Item No. 23. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for September 17, 2015, is VACATED. Having 

carefully considered all relevant materials, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Rule 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the 

pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial.” Judgment on the pleadings is proper 

when “‘there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as 

Case 5:14-cv-04073-EJD Document 27 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04073-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

a matter of law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fleming 

v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)). The standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is essentially 

the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. Thus, a court must presume all facts alleged in 

the complaint as true, and determine whether the complaint demonstrates a plausible entitlement to 

a legal remedy. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007) (discussing the 

standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)).

2. Here, the minimal factual content alleged in the Complaint suggests that Plaintiff’s 

employment discrimination claim may be based on an unidentified rule or regulation promulgated 

by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

1

See Compl., Docket Item No. 1 (“I 

immediately quoted FINRA law to her, saying that a candidate for a Financial Services company 

in the U.S. is still qualified for employment . . . if they have done less that [sic] one year in the 

county jail for a non-while collar crime.”). However, as State Farm argues and as this court has 

noted in another case brought by Plaintiff,2FINRA regulations do not provide for a private right of 

action. Fox v. Lifemark Sec. Corp., 12-CV-6650, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2061, at *15 (W.D.N.Y 

Jan. 8, 2015) (“FINRA does not provide a private right of action, thus even if defendants violated 

FINRA rules, plaintiff cannot recover . . . .”); Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 868 F. 

Supp. 2d 261, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). For this reason, Plaintiff cannot state a claim based on a 

violation of FINRA’s rules or regulations. 

3. Similarly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., or the Fair Employment and Housing Act 

(“FEHA”), California Government Code § 12940, because job applicants with a criminal history

do not constitute a protected class under either statutory scheme. See EEOC v. Fed. Express 

Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 849 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that Title VII “proscribes various 

 

1

“FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that has the authority to exercise comprehensive 

oversight over all securities firms that do business with the public.” Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. 

City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733, 737 (9th Cir. 2014).

2

 See Levy v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, No. 5:14-cv-04116-EJD (N.D. Cal. 

2014). 

Case 5:14-cv-04073-EJD Document 27 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04073-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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

employment practices involving discrimination on the basis of ‘race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin.’”); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a) (prohibiting discrimination based on 

“race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, 

medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender 

expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status . . . .”). Plaintiff also failed to 

allege exhaustion of administrative remedies in the Complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (Title 

VII exhaustion requirement); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b) (FEHA exhaustion 

requirement). Indeed, exhaustion is a pre-condition to a claim under either section. B.K.B. v. 

Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002); Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 211 

Cal. App. 4th 866, 879 (2012).

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff cannot state an employment 

discrimination claim against State Farm as a matter of law. Thus, State Farm is entitled to 

judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, its Rule 12(c) motion is GRANTED. Judgment will be 

entered in favor of State Farm and the Clerk shall close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04073-EJD Document 27 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3