Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00672/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00672-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOTTA SMITH, No. CIV.S-03-0672 FCD DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GILL MOORE, NEW WEST

PETROLEUM,

Defendants.

__________________________/

This matter is before the court on defendant New West

Stations, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

Spencer T. Malysiak appeared on behalf of defendant New West

Stations, Inc. at the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff Carlotta

Smith, proceeding pro se, appeared on her own behalf. Having

considered all written materials submitted in connection with the

motion, and after hearing oral argument, the court will recommend

that defendant’s motion be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 7
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

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this employment discrimination action

under Title VII by filing her complaint on October 1, 2002. The

named defendants in the complaint were Gil Moore, who soon was

dismissed from the action, and New West Petroleum. New West

Petroleum moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff was

never an employee of New West Petroleum and that plaintiff was

employed by a separate business entity, New West Stations, Inc. 

Because plaintiff named the wrong defendant in her complaint, New

West Petroleum argued that it was entitled to summary judgment.

The undersigned denied New West Petroleum’s motion for

summary judgment and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint properly naming New West Stations, Inc. as the defendant in

this action. In that order the court detailed the somewhat confusing

circumstances regarding the distinction between New West Stations,

Inc. and New West Petroleum, finding that good cause existed for

allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint naming New West

Stations, Inc. as the defendant. It also was apparent that New West

Stations, Inc. had been aware of the substance of plaintiff’s claim

and would not be prejudiced by being named as a defendant at that

stage of the proceedings. 

Soon after plaintiff filed her amended complaint, New West

Stations, Inc. filed the instant motion to dismiss. In its motion,

New West Stations, Inc. essentially rehashes the argument advanced by

New West Petroleum in its motion for summary judgment. More

specifically, New West Stations, Inc. now argues that plaintiff has

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 7
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

1 Judicial notice is properly taken of orders and decisions

made by administrative agencies. See Bryant v. Carleson, 444 F.2d

353, 357 (9th Cir. 1971). This includes the “records and reports of

administrative bodies.” Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern

California Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953); see Mack v.

South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.

1986), overruled on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n

v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991).

3

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies since the

administrative complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment

and Housing (“DFEH”) named New West Petroleum, not New West Stations,

Inc. (See Def.’s Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. A.)1 Plaintiff

opposes defendant’s motion.

ANALYSIS

To bring a Title VII cause of action in a district court a

plaintiff must first file an EEOC complaint against the allegedly

discriminatory party. Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 997 (9th

Cir. 1995); Stache v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied

Craftsmen, 852 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir. 1988). “However, a

plaintiff's failure to file an EEOC complaint does not bar her

absolutely from filing a Title VII suit; exhaustion of administrative

remedies is not jurisdictional but is merely a condition precedent to

suit which a defendant may waive or be estopped from asserting.” 

Stache, 852 F.2d at 1233. See also Vinieratos v. United States

Department of Air Force, 939 F.2d 762, 768 n.5 (9th Cir. 1991)(“We do

not recognize administrative exhaustion under Title VII as a

jurisdictional requirement per se; we treat it as a legal question

under the de novo standard because the issue is whether the plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 7
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

2 The undersigned rejects defendant’s suggestion that this

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to

present a claim to the EEOC. This is not a case where the plaintiff

failed to file any complaint at all such that the court might lack

subject matter jurisdiction. See Sommatino v. United States, 255

F.3d 704, 709 (9th Cir. 2001)(“In cases where a plaintiff has never

presented a discrimination complaint to the appropriate

administrative authority, we have held that the district court does

not have subject matter jurisdiction.”). As one district court has

observed: “The exhaustion requirement consists of two elements: the

jurisdictional non-waivable requirement of presentment of the claim

... (presentment); and (2) the waivable requirement of exhaustion of

administrative remedies (exhaustion).” Macy v. Dalton, 853 F. Supp.

350, 356-57 (E.D. Cal. 1994)(internal quotations and citations

omitted). This case concerns the second element of the exhaustion

requirement.

4

has satisfied a statutory precondition to suit.”)2 Further, “[t]he

remedial purpose of Title VII and the paucity of legal training among

those whom it is designed to protect require charges filed before the

EEOC to be construed liberally.” Stache, 852 F.2d at 1233 (citations

omitted). “When an employee brings suit for incidents not listed in

his prior EEOC charge, a federal court may hear the new Title VII

claims if they are ‘like or reasonably related to the allegations of

the EEOC charge.’” Id. at 1234 (citations omitted). 

Here, it is not surprising that plaintiff mistakenly named

New West Petroleum as her employer in her EEOC charge. As previously

observed by this court in connection with the earlier motion for

summary judgment, the distinction between New West Stations, Inc. and

New West Petroleum was far from clear. New West Stations, Inc. and

New West Petroleum share the same president and the same human

resources manager. At least one written employment communication

from the president to plaintiff vaguely refers to plaintiff’s

employer as “New West.” The heading on plaintiff’s most recent

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 4 of 7
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

3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court may take

judicial notice of its own files and other court records. See

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d

1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118,

119 (9th Cir. 1980).

5

earning statement vaguely refers to “New West Companies” as her

employer, with the names “New West Petroleum,” “New West Stations,

Inc.,” “New West Fast Foods, Inc.,” and “New West Petroleum, LLC”

listed in a subheading. Still other employment correspondence to

plaintiff was on New West Petroleum letterhead. (See Order filed

February 28, 2005, at 2-4.)3 In light of these circumstances and the

remedial nature of Title VII, the court finds that a liberal

construction of plaintiff’s EEOC charge encompasses New West

Stations, Inc. See Kaplan v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical & Stage

Employees, 525 F.2d 1354, 1359 (9th Cir. 1975) (“The EEOC charges

must be construed with utmost liberality since they are made by those

unschooled in the technicalities of formal pleading.”), abrogated on

other grounds by Laughon v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage

Employees, 248 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Love v. Pullman

Co., 404 U.S. 522, 527 (1972) ("technicalities are particularly

inappropriate in a statutory scheme [such as Title VII] in which

laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process");

Wangler v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., Inc., 742 F. Supp. 1458, 1461-62 (D.

Hawaii 1990)(listing Ninth Circuit decisions in which administrative

charges were liberally construed and actions permitted against

unnamed parties).

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Further, as observed in the order granting plaintiff leave

to file an amended complaint, New West Stations, Inc. long has been

aware of plaintiff’s claim. In the administrative document headed

“Response to A Complaint of Discrimination,” the human resources

manager for both entities responded to the complaint filed by

plaintiff on behalf of New West Stations, Inc., the entity that

actually employed plaintiff, even though the charge mistakenly listed

New West Petroleum as the employer. (See Decl. of Katherine S. Clark

in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. filed July 26, 2004, Ex. C.) Any

suggestion that New West Stations, Inc. did not have sufficient

notice of plaintiff’s claim would be disingenuous.

For all of these reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss

must be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 8, 2005.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\smith0672.f&r.mtd

Case 2:03-cv-00672-FCD-DAD Document 78 Filed 12/08/05 Page 7 of 7