Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00843/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00843-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1446pi Notice of Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS LEWIS and LETICIA 

LEWIS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BILL McGOWEN; WILLIAM 

GORE; DIANE JACOB; and 

HELEN ROBBINS MEYER,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants William 

Gore, Dianne Jacob and Helen Robbins-Meyer.

1

(ECF No. 16).

I. Background

On March 29, 2018 Plaintiffs Thomas Lewis and Leticia Lewis initiated this action 

by filing a Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) against Bill McGowan, William Gore, Dianne Jacob, 

and Helen Robbin-Meyers in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The 

 

1 Plaintiffs incorrectly spelled Bill McGowan’s last name “McGowen,” see ECF No. 2, Dianne Jacob’s

name “Diane” and Helen Robbins-Meyer “Robbins Meyer,” see ECF No. 16.

Case 3:18-cv-00843-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

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

boxes on the Complaint for “intentional tort” and “business tort/unfair business practice” 

are checked. (ECF No. 1-2 at 4, 8). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants “aided and 

abetted [a] racist bigoted hostile hate group” and “supported and empowered doe pilots 

acting in a racist bigoted host[ile] group directed towards our family.” Id. at 5. The 

Complaint alleges that the actions of the Defendants infringed upon Plaintiffs’ “right[] to 

live in peace without fear” and prevented Plaintiffs from “[o]perat[ing their] licensed 

childcare facility as [they] had done for the past 30 years.” Id.

On May 1, 2018, the United States of America, “as the party to be substituted in this 

action for William J. McGowan III,” removed this case to this Court. (ECF No. 1). On 

May 16, 2018, the United States was substituted for William McGowan. (ECF No. 2). On 

August 6, 2018, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim against the United 

States without prejudice. (ECF No. 10). 

On September 12, 2018, Defendants William Gore, Dianne Jacob and Helen 

Robbins-Meyer filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16). On September 25, 2018, 

Plaintiffs filed Opposition.2(ECF No. 20). On September 27, 2018, Defendants filed a 

Reply. (ECF No. 21). On October 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply. (ECF No. 23).

II. Motion to Dismiss

a. Contentions

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

4(m), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).

3

 Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted 

under Rule 12(b)(6) because “Plaintiffs were required to file a timely government claim 

with the County of San Diego as a prerequisite to bringing a state-law cause of action for 

 

2 Plaintiffs’ request that the Court reinstate Bill McGowan as a Defendant was included in Plaintiffs’ 

Opposition. (ECF No. 20 at 7). 

3 The Court finds that Defendants’ contention under Rule 12(b)(6) is dispositive of this matter, and 

declines to address Defendants’ contentions for dismissal under Rules 4(m), 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5).

Case 3:18-cv-00843-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

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

damages against County employees/officers (Defendants), and Plaintiffs failed to do so.” 

(ECF No. 16-1 at 3).

Plaintiffs contend that “this is a crime of hate, violence and discrimination allowed 

to form and exist, this should preclude plaintiffs/victims from interaction of same 

institutions” and “Plaintiff had good reason not to file a claim through county of San Diego 

FAA. Just on its face our case involves other entities other than the county of San Diego 

and the FAA.” (ECF No. 20 at 2). 

b. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “A district court’s 

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is 

proper if there is a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts 

alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 

1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988)).

c. Discussion

Under the California Tort Claims Act, before a lawsuit can be filed against a state 

employee for injury resulting from an act or omission within the scope of their duties, a 

claim for money damages must first be filed with the public entity employer. Cal. Gov’t 

Code § 945.4 (“[N]o suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on 

a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim 

therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or 

has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . . .); Cal. Gov’t Code § 950.2 

(Applying the pre-litigation claim requirements of Section 900 to “a cause of action against 

a public employee or former public employee for injury resulting from an act or omission 

in the scope of his employment as a public employee.”); State v. Superior Court, 90 P.3d 

116, 118 (Cal. 2004) (“As part of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 

900 et seq. establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public 

Case 3:18-cv-00843-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

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

entity. As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the

public entity . . . . The failure to do so bars the plaintiff from bringing suit against that 

entity.”). 

In this case, Defendants William Gore, Dianne Jacob and Helen Robbins-Meyer are

public employees of the state of California. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not file 

claims with the employers of Defendants before commencing this action. See ECF No. 20 

at 2 (“[T]his is a crime of hate, violence and discrimination . . . this should preclude 

plaintiffs/victims from interaction of same institutions.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claim does 

not fall under one of the limited exceptions to the pre-litigation claim filing requirement. 

See Cal Gov’t Code §§ 905, 950.4. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not “state[d] a claim 

upon which relief can be granted” against Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 

Superior Court, 90 P.3d at 120 (“[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing 

compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity 

to a [dismissal] for failure to state a cause of action.”). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is 

GRANTED.

III. Request to Reinstate Bill McGowan as a Defendant

On May 16, 2018, the United States was substituted for William McGowan. (ECF 

No. 2). On August 6, 2018, the Court found that “[t]he factual allegations in the Complaint 

do not establish that Plaintiffs’ claim against the United States is for injuries ‘caused by 

the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting 

within the scope of his office or employment’” and issued an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ 

claim against the United States without prejudice. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff does not include 

any legal or factual grounds upon which to reinstate the dismissed defendant.

4

 The Court 

declines to reinstate Bill McGowan as a defendant.

// 

 

4 On May 16, 2018, the United States was substituted for William McGowan. (ECF No. 2).

Case 3:18-cv-00843-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-cv-0843-WQH-NLS

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

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants William

Gore, Dianne Jacob and Helen Robbins-Meyer (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint is DISMISSED as to Defendants William Gore, Dianne Jacob and Helen 

Robbins-Meyer with prejudice, since any further amendment would be futile because 

Plaintiffs have failed to meet the pre-litigation claim presentation requirements of the 

California Tort Claims Act.

5

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion to amend the 

complaint as to Defendant United States of America shall be filed within 30 days of the 

entry of this order, and must comply with Local Civil Rules 7.1 and 15.1(c). If no motion 

to amend the complaint is filed, the Court will order the Clerk to close this case. 

Dated: January 8, 2019

 

5 The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ pro se status. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972) (Pro 

se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers). Although a pro se plaintiff 

is normally entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal, it is clear in this instance that 

no amendment can cure the defects of a claim brought before the pre-litigation claim presentation 

requirements of the California Tort Claims Act have been satisfied. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to 

amend if a complaint can possibly be saved.”).

Case 3:18-cv-00843-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5