Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00061/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00061-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McCloud Community Services District
Defendant
Jerome Walker
Plaintiff

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

----oo0oo----

JEROME WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCCLOUD COMMUNITY SERVICES 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Civ. No. 2:16-61 WBS CMK

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS; 

MOTION TO STRIKE

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Jerome Walker brought this action against 

defendant McCloud Community Services District alleging race 

discrimination in violation of (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (2) 

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t 

Code § 12900 et seq., and (3) California public policy. (Compl. 

(Docket No. 1).)1 Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s third 

cause of action without leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule 

 

1 Plaintiff has exhausted his federal and state 

administrative remedies. (Id. Exs. 1-3.)

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 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

of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. (Docket No. 4.) Defendant 

also moves to strike plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages 

pursuant to Rule 12(f). (Docket No. 5.)

Plaintiff has filed statements of non-opposition to 

both motions. (Docket Nos. 9-10.) A statement of non-opposition 

is filed by a “responding party who has no opposition to the 

granting of [a] motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Having read 

defendant’s briefs and in light of the absence of any opposition 

to the pending motions, the court will vacate the hearing set for 

March 21, 2016 and take the motions under submission pursuant to 

Local Rule 230(g).

I. Motion to Dismiss Third Cause of Action

A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is 

either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of 

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 

Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). Under California Government Code section 815, “a state 

common law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy, known as a Tameny action, cannot be brought against a 

public entity.” Anthoine v. N. Cent. Ctys. Consortium, 605 F.3d 

740, 754 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of 

Cal., 44 Cal. 4th 876, 899-900 (2008)).

Plaintiff’s third cause of action is a Tameny claim. 

(Compl. ¶ 17.) Defendant, however, is a public entity and may 

not be held liable for a Tameny claim. (See Docket No. 4-2.) 

The court will therefore grant defendant’s motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s third cause of action without leave to amend. See

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 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

Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles, 172 Cal. App. 4th 320, 329 (2d 

Dist. 2009) (“Lloyd’s fifth cause of action against the County, a 

Tameny claim for wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy, fails to state a claim.”); Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 

518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Dismissal without leave to

amend is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be 

saved by amendment.”).

II. Motion to Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages

Rule 12(f) permits the court to “strike from a pleading 

an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The court may only strike 

material from a pleading if it falls within one of these five 

categories. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 

973–74 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s 

prayer for punitive damages, (Compl. at 3:17), on the ground that 

punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities 

under Title VII and California law.

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “Rule 12(f) does 

not authorize district courts to strike claims for damages on the 

ground that such claims are precluded as a matter of law.” 

Whittlestone, 618 F.3d at 974-75; see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 493 F. App’x 838, 840 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“revers[ing] the district court order striking [plaintiff’s] 

request” for relief under Rule 12(f)). In light of Whittlestone, 

courts in this district have held that Rule 12(f) cannot be used 

to strike any portion of a plaintiff’s prayer for relief, 

including a request for punitive damages. E.g., Estate of Prasad 

ex rel. Prasad v. County of Sutter, 958 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1128 

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 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

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (Nunley, J.) (“Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive 

damages satisfies ‘none of the five categories’ of material that 

may be stricken under Rule 12(f).” (alterations omitted)); 

Bakersfield Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Cornerstone Valve, LLC, Civ. 

No. 1:14-1445 JLT, 2015 WL 4496349, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 

2015) (“[A] motion under Rule 12(f) is not a proper method by 

which to strike a claim for punitive damages.”); Landmark Equity 

Fund, II, LLC v. Arias, Civ. No. 1:15-202 JLT, 2015 WL 4224176, 

at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) (“[T]his Court has determined 

that striking portions of a prayer for relief is not proper under 

Rule 12(f).”); McGuire v. Recontrust Co., Civ. No. 2:11-2787 KJM

CKD, 2013 WL 5883782, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) (parties

may not use Rule 12(f) to “strike any portion of [a] plaintiff’s 

prayer for relief”).

2

Because defendant argues that plaintiff may not recover 

punitive damages as a matter of law, defendant’s motion is based 

entirely on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s request for punitive 

damages. The proper vehicle for challenging the sufficiency of a 

punitive damages claim is a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6), and not a motion to strike under Rule 12(f). Kelley v. 

 

2 Defendant cites two cases for the proposition that Rule 

12(f) allows a court to strike a prayer for relief where the 

damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law. See

Gay-Straight Alliance Network v. Visalia Unified Sch. Dist., 262 

F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (Wanger, J.) (striking 

prayer for punitive damages because public entities “cannot be 

sued under [42 U.S.C. § 1983] as a matter of law for punitive 

damages”); Barefield v. Cal. State Univ. Bakersfield, Civ. No. F05-633 AWI TAG, 2006 WL 829122, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2006) 

(“[A] motion to strike may be used to strike a prayer for relief 

where the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of 

law.”). Both cases, however, were decided before Whittlestone.

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 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

Corr. Corp. of Am., 750 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1146 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

(Ishii, J.).

“Where a motion is in substance a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, 

but is incorrectly denominated as a Rule 12(f) motion, a court 

may convert the improperly designated Rule 12(f) motion into a 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Id. (citation omitted); e.g., Crisanto v. 

County of Tulare, Civ. No. 115-1527 LJO BAM, 2015 WL 7188165, at 

*6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) (construing motion to strike a

request for punitive damages as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss). Defendant’s motion is in substance a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion because it relies on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s 

punitive damages claim. The court will therefore consider 

defendant’s motion as though it were correctly denominated as a 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.

It is well-established that Title VII specifically 

exempts public entities from punitive damages. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981a(b)(1); Ulmschneider v. Los Banos Unified Sch. Dist., Civ. 

No. 1:11-CV-1767 AWI GSA, 2012 WL 525577, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 

16, 2012). California Government Code section 818 similarly 

“bars any award of punitive damages against a public entity.” 

Westlands Water Dist. v. Amoco Chem. Co., 953 F.2d 1109, 1113 

(9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s

claim for punitive damages without leave to amend. See Arres v. 

City of Fresno, Civ. No. F-10-1628 LJO SMS, 2011 WL 284971, at 

*30 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) (dismissing with prejudice punitive 

damages claims against public entity defendant).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 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

(1) defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third 

cause of action, (Docket No. 4), be, and the same hereby is, 

GRANTED without leave to amend; and

(2) defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s claim for 

punitive damages, (Docket No. 5), construed as a motion to 

dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6), is hereby GRANTED without leave to amend. 

Dated: March 14, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00061-WBS-CMK Document 11 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 6