Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01644/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01644-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tobias Beck
Plaintiff
Peninsula Fire District
Defendant
Robert Phillips
Defendant
Gary Pini
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOBIAS BECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENINSULA FIRE DISTRICT; 

ROBERT PHILLIPS; GARY PINI; 

and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

No. 13-cv-01644 JAM-AC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CAUSE 

OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Peninsula Fire 

District’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #21) Plaintiff 

Tobias Beck’s (“Plaintiff”)Second Cause of Action in his First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. #20) for failure to state a claim 

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

Procedure. Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc. #25) and Defendant

filed a reply (Doc. #26). For the following reasons, Defendant’s

motion is GRANTED.1

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for April 9, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 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

2

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of Tehama County, California, and 

was hired by Defendant Peninsula Fire District in 2008 as a 

firefighter-paramedic. FAC ¶¶ 3,7. On May 13, 2011, Plaintiff 

suffered an on-the job injury to his ankle. FAC ¶ 7. From May 

13, 2011 until June 3, 2012, Plaintiff was on temporary total 

disability under California workers’ compensation. FAC ¶ 7. 

Plaintiff alleges that, upon returning to active duty, he was 

“singled out for a freeze of contractual salary increase.” FAC 

¶ 8. Plaintiff further alleges that, on October 25, 2012, “a 

part-time, less qualified employee was assigned to be shift 

supervisor over Plaintiff.” FAC ¶ 8. On November 8, 2012, 

Plaintiff alleges that he was “denied financial reimbursement for

an educational class Defendant agreed to pay for.” FAC ¶ 8. 

Despite the fact that Plaintiff was “placed on light duty by his 

physician” on November 20, 2012, Plaintiff alleges that he was 

“assigned to be on his feet sweeping, mopping, cleaning and 

moving heavy objects across an icy parking lot.” FAC ¶ 8. On 

December 12, 2012, Plaintiff “received a letter of disciplinary 

action against him.” FAC ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that these 

actions were taken by Defendant to retaliate against Plaintiff 

for suffering a workplace injury and for having a disability. 

FAC ¶ 10. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant retaliated 

against Plaintiff for his union membership by “sabotaging 

contract negotiations” and by “question[ing] other employees 

. . . about possible wrong-doing” by Plaintiff. FAC ¶ 10. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he was retaliated against for filing 

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 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

3

a complaint with the California Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. FAC ¶ 10. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants subjected him to improper disciplinary action in 

retaliation for Plaintiff’s signature on another employee’s 

paramedic license renewal application, despite the fact that 

“paramedics were authorized to sign for such renewal 

applications.” FAC ¶ 11.

Plaintiff filed a charge of disability discrimination with 

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and 

subsequently received a right-to-sue notice. FAC ¶ 9. On August 

8, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Complaint (Doc. #2) in this Court. 

On December 30, 2013, the Court issued an Order (Doc. #19) 

dismissing the Complaint. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

the FAC, which includes the following causes of action: (1) 

“Disability Discrimination and Retaliation;” (2) “Intentional 

Infliction of Emotional Distress;” and (3) “Disability 

Discrimination.” The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

federal ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Plaintiff’s

related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice (Doc. #22) of the First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. #20) and the original Complaint (Doc. #2)

in this case. As these documents are already part of the record, 

the request is not necessary and DENIED.

Defendant also requests judicial notice of the fact that 

Peninsula Fire District (Defendant) is a public entity. As this 

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 3 of 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

4

fact is common knowledge and is not subject to reasonable 

dispute, Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

B. Discussion

1. Second Cause of Action

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second cause of action for 

intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) must be 

dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege a statutory 

basis for liability. Mot. at 5. Defendant notes that the 

California Government Code (“CGC”) immunizes public entities from 

liability for any injury, except as otherwise provided by 

statute. Mot. at 5. Plaintiff does not address this argument in 

his opposition.

Section 815 of the CGC states that, “[e]xcept as otherwise 

provided by statute . . . [a] public entity is not liable for an 

injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of 

the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” CGC

§ 815(a). Accordingly, a plaintiff fails to state a tort claim 

against a public entity unless he can point to a statutory 

provision declaring that the entity may be found liable. 

Eastburn v. Reg'l Fire Prot. Auth., 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1179-80

(2003).

Defendant Peninsula Fire District is a public entity and the 

requirements of CGC section 815 apply. FAC ¶ 4. Plaintiff has 

not pleaded a statutory basis for his second cause of action for 

IIED. FAC ¶¶ 17-21. Nor does Plaintiff identify a statutory 

basis for this claim in his opposition. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

second cause of action is dismissed for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. This claim is DISMISSED WITH 

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 4 of 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

5

LEAVE TO AMEND, and Plaintiff is given one final opportunity to

amend his complaint to properly allege facts sufficient to 

establish the existence of statutory liability for IIED. See

Comm. for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 

644 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1208 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (dismissing an IIED 

claim against a public entity for failure to allege a statutory 

basis for liability, but granting leave to amend).

Moreover, the Court notes that it previously dismissed 

Plaintiff’s IIED claim for failure to sufficiently allege (1) 

extreme and outrageous conduct and (2) severe emotional distress. 

Doc. #19, at 7-9. Plaintiff’s new allegations in the FAC do not 

address these inadequacies in any way. FAC ¶¶ 10. Leave to 

amend should not be viewed as an opportunity to submit a nearly 

identical complaint, with the hope that the Court will reverse 

its previous ruling. 

Finally, Defendant’s argument that the IIED claim is 

precluded by the California Worker’s Compensation scheme is 

neither necessary nor persuasive. Mot. at 8. The Court directs 

Defendant to pages 6 and 7 of the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 

#19), where this argument is expressly addressed, and ultimately 

rejected.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days from the

date of this Order. Defendant’s responsive pleading is due 

within twenty (20) days thereafter. If Plaintiff elects not to 

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 5 of 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

6

file a Second Amended Complaint, this action will proceed 

consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2014

 

Case 2:13-cv-01644-JAM-AC Document 28 Filed 04/17/14 Page 6 of 6