Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02606/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02606-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Bade
Defendant
Craig Peterson
Defendant
John Plotts
Defendant
Regents of the University of California
Defendant
Denise Stripling
Plaintiff
University of California San Francisco
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DENISE STRIPLING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-02606-YGR 

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Denise Stripling (“Stripling”) brings this civil action against Defendants Regents 

of the University of California (“Regents”), University of California San Francisco (“UCSF”), 

John Plotts, Michael Bade, and Craig Peterson (“individual UCSF defendants”) for claims arising 

generally from her employment with the Regents and ultimate termination. Plaintiff in a pro se

capacity alleges twenty-six causes of action and seeks damages. 

The Regents have filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Stripling has failed to state 

a claim for myriad reasons, chiefly that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff’s claims. (Dkt. 

No. 11 (“Mot.”).) Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this 

action, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss, and 

provides leave to amend with respect to those claims for which the Court cannot, at this juncture, 

discern an immediate bar.1

 1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

determined this motion suitable for decision without oral argument. 

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 32 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 3
15 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

infliction of emotional distress claim, or a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, on the 

facts as alleged. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim is therefore GRANTED without 

prejudice. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court provides plaintiff an 

opportunity to amend her claim in order to include additional factual allegations to support these 

causes of action. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as set forth 

above.8 In summary, the holdings are as follows: 

1. First Cause of Action: DISMISSED;

2. Second through Seventeenth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-Second Causes of Action: 

DISMISSED as to the Regents and defendants in their official capacities; plaintiff given 

Leave to Amend to clarify which causes of action pertain to defendants in their 

individual capacities and provide further factual allegations; 

3. Eighteenth Cause of Action: Motion to dismiss is DENIED;

4. Nineteenth and Twentieth Causes of Action: DISMISSED as to individual defendants in 

their individual capacities, but plaintiff is granted Leave to Amend;

5. Twenty-Third Cause of Action: DISMISSED as to the Regents, but plaintiff is granted 

Leave to Amend with respect to her claim against individual defendants; 

6. Twenty-Fourth Cause of Action: DISMISSED with Leave to Amend;

7. Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Causes of Action: DISMISSED with Leave to Amend. 

 8

 The Court notes that in her opposition, plaintiff raised claims for relief that were not 

pleaded in her FAC, specifically California Civil Code section 52.1 and California Government 

Code section 8547.10. Because these allegations formed no part of plaintiff’s FAC and thus were 

not properly presented for consideration of the instant motion, the Court expresses no opinion as 

to their sufficiency or viability. Plaintiff is free, however, to include such allegations and causes 

of action in any SAC. 

Separately, defendants take issue with plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. 

Specifically, defendants argue that the Regents cannot be liable for such damages, and that as to 

the individual defendants, plaintiff has alleged no basis for a punitive damages award. (Mot. at 

33.) However, in plaintiff’s prayer for relief, such damages are requested only relative to the 

individual defendants, not the Regents. (FAC ¶ 437.) Because plaintiff has been provided leave 

to amend as to the allegations and claims against the individual defendants, the Court reserves on 

the question of whether punitive damages might be available in this case. 

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 32 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 3
16 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Any Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than thirty-five days following the 

issuance of this Order. 

The Court notes that the issues presented in this case are complex, and that as a pro se 

litigant, plaintiff has not had the benefit of legal assistance in drafting her complaint or in 

responding to defendants’ highly technical legal arguments. The Court further notes that as a pro 

se litigant, plaintiff may seek assistance at the Court’s Legal Help Center if she makes an 

appointment. The Legal Help Center’s phone number is (415) 782-8982 and its website is 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

This terminates Docket No. 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 4, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 4:14-cv-02606-YGR Document 32 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 3