Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01346/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01346-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

SUANO BERE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MGA HEALTHCARE STAFFING INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-01346 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DENYING

MOTION FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT AS

MOOT

INTRODUCTION

In this employment dispute, which plaintiff is prosecuting pro se, defendant moves to

dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, moves for a more definite

statement. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Defendant’s

motion for a more definite statement is DENIED AS MOOT.

STATEMENT

From January 2013 to December 2015, plaintiff Suano Bere worked as a certified

nurse’s assistant for defendant MGA Healthcare Staffing Inc. In December 2014, plaintiff

suffered an eye injury and commenced a medical leave. Sometime thereafter, plaintiff was

replaced in his position by another nurse and, eventually, the position was eliminated altogether. 

Plaintiff’s supervisor stated that plaintiff’s medical leave was a factor in the decision to

eliminate the position. Plaintiff complained to the president of the company that he believed he

was retaliated against for having filed a medical claim for his injuries and for taking an

Case 3:16-cv-01346-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 5
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

authorized medical leave. One month after he returned from leave, and just two days after he

complained to the president, plaintiff was terminated (Compl. ¶¶ 8–18). 

On February 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior Court

alleging: discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); retaliation

under the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA);

and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant filed a notice of removal on the basis

that the action arises under the FMLA. Defendant then moved for dismissal or, in the

alternative, a more definite statement. A subsequent order required defendant to show cause as

to why the Court has jurisdiction given that plaintiff’s complaint only references the FMLA. 

ANALYSIS

1. SUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS.

In its motion, defendant sought dismissal for insufficiency of process. At the hearing on

May 26, 2016, however, counsel for defendant accepted service of the summons and complaint

on behalf of defendant. Process is therefore sufficient. The Court thanks counsel for this

courtesy.

2. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION.

The complaint references the FMLA under its third cause of action and alleges plaintiff

was retaliated against for asserting his rights under the FMLA. Plaintiff’s complaint, while

inartful, asserts a claim under the FMLA. Therefore, subject-matter jurisdiction exists.

3. MOTION TO DISMISS.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when there are sufficient factual allegations

to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. While a

court “must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true,” it is “not bound to

accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

Case 3:16-cv-01346-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 5
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

A. FEHA and CFRA Claims.

Plaintiff alleges discrimination in violation of FEHA. Before bringing suit under FEHA,

however, a plaintiff must exhaust FEHA administrative remedies. Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65,

88, 276 Cal.Rptr. 130 (1990). Under California law, employees must exhaust administrative

remedies provided by FEHA by filing an administrative complaint with DFEH, and obtaining a

notice of a right to sue. Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1607,

1613, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 (1995) (summarizing the requirements of DFEH). 

Here, plaintiff fails to allege that he has exhausted administrative remedies under FEHA. 

The requirement to exhaust administrative remedies is jurisdictional. Rascon v. Diversified

Maint. Sys., 1:13-CV-1578 AWI JLT, 2014 WL 1572554, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014). As

such, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under FEHA is GRANTED.

Because CFRA is a part of FEHA, a plaintiff must also exhaust administrative remedies

before bringing a civil action for violation of CFRA. Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc., 16 F. Supp.

2d 1192, 1201 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (Judge Napolean A. Jones). Plaintiff has failed to allege

exhaustion of administrative remedies with respect to his CFRA claim. Accordingly,

defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s CFRA claim is GRANTED.

B. FMLA Claim.

The FMLA entitles employees who have worked for a company for over one year to

take up to 12 weeks of leave a year due to “a serious health condition that makes the employee

unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D);

29 C.F.R. § 825.200(a)(4). The FMLA also prohibits an employer from retaliating against any

employee for exercising her rights protected by the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a) (2); 29 C.F.R.

§ 825.220(c); see also Hallman v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No.

2:13-CV-02139-ODW, 2013 WL 5441753, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013) (Judge Otis D.

Wright).

Under the FMLA, an employee must establish that: (1) he was eligible for the FMLA’s

protections, (2) his employer was covered by the FMLA, (3) he was entitled to leave under the

FMLA, (4) he provided sufficient notice of his intent to take leave, and (5) his employer denied

Case 3:16-cv-01346-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 778

(9th Cir. 2011).

Here, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show that he is entitled to relief under

the FMLA. In particular, he fails to allege facts showing that he was eligible for leave under the

law. Plaintiff alleges that he had worked for defendant for over a year but he does not allege

that he had worked for defendant for the required 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month

period. See 29 U.S.C. 2611(2)(A)(ii). Plaintiff also fails to allege that he gave notice of his

intent to take leave. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FMLA claim is therefore

GRANTED.

C. Claim Under California Labor Code Section 132a.

Plaintiff’s complaint briefly references California Labor Code Section 132a (Compl. ¶

9). In addition, at the hearing, plaintiff asserted that he suffered his injury while at work. The

complaint, however, makes no allegation that the injury was sustained at work. Nor does the

complaint provide any other factual detail that would support a claim for a work-related injury. 

To the extent that plaintiff asserts a claim under California Labor Code Section 132a, his

complaint does not allege sufficient facts to show he is entitled to relief. Defendant’s motion to

dismiss any claims under California Labor Code Section 132a is GRANTED. 

D. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

The elements of a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress are: (1) the

defendant engaged in negligent conduct; (2) the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress;

and (3) the defendant’s negligent conduct was a cause of the serious emotional distress. ButlerRupp v. Lourdeaux, 134 Cal. App. 4th 1220, 1226 n. 1 (2005). In addition, recovery is limited

to situations where the defendant either assumed a duty to the plaintiff, or breached a legal duty

that caused the emotional distress of the plaintiff. Bernstein v. Apollo Grp., Inc., No.

5:13-CV-01701-LHK, 2014 WL 854834, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (Judge Lucy Koh).

Here, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant engaged in any negligent conduct. Plaintiff

has also not alleged that defendant owed a duty to plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is GRANTED. 

Case 3:16-cv-01346-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED: defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA and CFRA claims is GRANTED; defendant’s motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s FMLA claim is GRANTED; defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for

negligent infliction of emotional distress is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for a more definite

statement is DENIED as moot. 

Plaintiff shall have until JUNE 22, 2016 AT NOON, to file a motion, noticed on the

normal 35-day track, for leave to amend his claims. A proposed amended complaint must be

appended to this motion. Plaintiff must plead his best case. The motion should clearly explain

how the amended complaint cures the deficiencies identified herein. If such a motion is not

filed by the deadline, this case will be closed.

Pro se plaintiff is advised that he may seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free

service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-8982, or by signing up for

an appointment on the 15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, plaintiff will be able to speak

with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not representation. More

information is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Plaintiff may also

wish to obtain a copy from the Clerk’s Office on the 16th Floor of the district court’s Handbook

for Litigants Without a Lawyer. It provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of

your case, including discovery, motions, and trial. The handbook is available in person at the

Clerk’s Office and online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-01346-WHA Document 24 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 5