Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02648/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02648-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

– 1 – 12-cv-2648 BAS (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

EVELYN NAIGAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-2648 BAS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

v.

NANA SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Evelyn Naigan’s First Amended Complaint alleges three claims 

against Defendant NANA Services, LLC for violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000(e). Doc. 11. Defendant has filed a Motion to 

Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). 

Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this action commenced 

within the ninety (90) days after the issuance of a Right to Sue letter, the Court 

cannot exercise jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED. 

Case 3:12-cv-02648-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/23/14 Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 12-cv-2648 BAS (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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true and must 

construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the 

nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir.

1996). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed 

factual allegations, rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A 

claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent 

with’ a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 

plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 557).

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting 

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)) (alteration in original). A court need 

not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Despite the 

deference the court must pay to the plaintiff’s allegations, it is not proper for the 

court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged 

or that defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” 

Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 

U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

Case 3:12-cv-02648-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/23/14 Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 12-cv-2648 BAS (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

Generally, courts may not consider material outside the complaint when 

ruling on a motion to dismiss. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 

896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). However, documents specifically 

identified in the complaint whose authenticity is not questioned by parties may also 

be considered. Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1080 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(superceded by statutes on other grounds). Moreover, the court may consider the 

full text of those documents, even when the complaint quotes only selected 

portions. Id. It may also consider material properly subject to judicial notice 

without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Barron v. Reich, 

13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994). 

As a general rule, a court freely grants leave to amend a complaint which has 

been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied 

when “the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the 

challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. 

Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant, in its Motion to Dismiss, makes a statute of limitations challenge 

to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiff 

failed to file her Complaint within the ninety day statutory limitation imposed by 

Title VII. 42 USC 2000e–5(f)(1). 

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dismisses a claim, it 

must notify the claimant and inform her she has 90 days to bring a civil suit. Id. 

This 90-day period constitutes a statute of limitations. Scholar v. Pacific Bell, 963 

F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Even assuming all factual allegations are true in the First Amended 

Complaint, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing her action commenced within 

the time frame required. Instead, Plaintiff claims the complaint is “timely” without 

Case 3:12-cv-02648-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/23/14 Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 12-cv-2648 BAS (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

providing either the date of dismissal or the date the right-to-sue letter was sent.

Compl. ¶ 6. The Complaint is even arguably ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff 

even received a right-to-sue letter. This conclusory language without alleging any 

supporting facts fails to meet the pleading standard required under Twombly. 

To provide the Court jurisdiction, Plaintiff must include, at minimum, the 

date the “right-to-sue” letter was postmarked, as well as facts supporting tolling or 

delaying commencement of the ninety-day period. Scholar, supra at 267, see also 

Riley v. Delaware River & Bay Auth., 457 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Del. 2006) (curing 

defect in pleading statute of limitation by including right-to-sue letter as exhibit in 

opposition to motion to dismiss). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than 21 calendar days 

from the date this order is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2014

Case 3:12-cv-02648-BAS-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/23/14 Page 4 of 4