Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03443/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03443-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darla Horne
Plaintiff
Southwest Airlines Co.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARLA HORNE

Plaintiff, No. C 05-3443 PJH 

v. ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint came on for hearing before this

court on October 12, 2005. Plaintiff Darla Horne appeared through her counsel, Richard M.

Rogers, and defendant appeared through its counsel, Angela Dotson. Having read the

parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and

good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion as follows, for the reasons

stated at the hearing. 

1. Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of California Government Code § 12945

et seq. (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) is dismissed with prejudice because it is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960 (establishing a

one-year limitation for the filing of an administrative complaint).

2. Plaintiff’s cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is

dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 (establishing a two-year limitation for the filing of a

complaint).

3. To the extent plaintiff asserts any cause of action for intentional infliction of

emotional distress, this claim is also dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the

applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (establishing a two-year
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

limitation for the filing of a complaint). 

Plaintiff attempts to avoid dismissal by arguing for application of (1) equitable tolling, or

(2) the doctrine of continuing violations, or (3) California Code of Civil Procedure § 352. 

Plaintiff’s reliance on these doctrines is misplaced, as none applies. 

Equitable tolling does not apply because plaintiff cannot prove either excusable

ignorance or justifiable delay. Moreover, plaintiff’s pursuit of a union grievance procedure is

insufficient, as a matter of law, to toll the applicable limitations period. Similarly, the doctrine

of continuing violations has no application here. That doctrine allows a plaintiff to allege a

claim based in part on conduct that occurred outside the limitations period, provided that at

least one of the acts occurred within the statutory period. Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.

4th 798, 823-24 (2001). Here, the triggering act Horne complains of – her August 3, 2001

termination – is already outside the limitations period. Finally, California Code of Civil

Procedure § 352 is also inapplicable. That provision provides for tolling of statutes of

limitation when the claimant is either under the age of majority, or legally insane at the time a

cause of action accrues. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352. Here, there is no allegation that Horne

was mentally incompetent or otherwise legally insane at the time of her termination. 

Accordingly, and since no doctrine applies to prevent application of the relevant

statutes of limitation, plaintiff’s causes of action are dismissed. Because the court finds, as

stated at the hearing, that granting leave to amend plaintiff’s complaint would be futile, the

dismissal is with prejudice. This disposes of the whole of plaintiff’s complaint. The clerk shall

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2005 

_______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge