Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01668/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01668-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Farmers Insurance Group
Defendant
Mitsue Takahashi
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) 

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

Jeffrey P. Davis #166484 

DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC. 

8080 N. Palm Avenue 

Third Floor 

Fresno, CA 93711 

Tel: (559) 432-4500 

Fax: (559) 432-4590 

jdavis@daklaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE (erroneously sued herein as 

“FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP – MERCED OFFICE”) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MITSUE TAKAHASHI, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

FARMERS INSURANCE GROUPMERCED OFFICE, individuals and DOES 1 

through XX, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:09-CV-01668-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF 

DEFENDANT FARMERS INSURANCE 

EXCHANGE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) 

DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 

TIME: 10:00 a.m. 

DEPT: 3 

JUDGE OLIVER W. WANGER

Case 1:09-cv-01668-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) 

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

The motion of Defendant FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE (erroneously 

sued herein as “Farmers Insurance Group – Merced Office”)(“Defendant”) under Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6), to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff MITSUE 

TAKAHASHI (“Plaintiff”) for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, motion for a more 

definite statement, came on regularly for hearing on March 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 

3, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, presiding. Plaintiff appeared pre se. Defendant was 

represented by Jeffrey P. Davis, of Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, Inc.

The Court having considered the papers and argument of the parties, evidence 

having been introduced, judicial notice having been taken and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion be, and hereby is, GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and the ADEA, contained within her 

Constructive Wrongful Discharge claim, are time-barred and barred by res judicata. As to the 

Title VII and ADEA claims, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and these claims are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

2. Supplemental jurisdiction is declined over the remaining state law claims, 

and they are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. In all other respects, Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, 

motion for a more definite statement is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 17, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-01668-OWW -SMS Document 20 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2