Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00740-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Cumpston
Defendant
Ane Deister
Defendant
El Dorado Irrigation District
Defendant
George Osborne
Defendant
David Powell
Defendant
Scott Shewbridge
Plaintiff
George Wheeldon
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT SHEWBRIDGE,

NO. CIV. S-05-0740 FCD PAN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

a municipal corporation, ANE

DEISTER, DAVID POWELL, THOMAS

CUMPSTON, GEORGE WHEELDON, and

GEORGE OSBORNE,

Defendants.

______________________________/

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the court on defendants’ motion to

dismiss, in part, plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, 

defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for wrongful

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 7
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

termination in violation of public policy on the ground that it

is untimely under the California Tort Claims Act.

For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is

granted with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

In November of 2001, defendant El Dorado Irrigation District

(“EID”) hired plaintiff as the Senior Engineer in charge of

engineering for its Drinking Water Division; EID later assigned

plaintiff as the Engineering Co-Head for Hyrdroelectric and

Watershed Management. (Pl.’s Cmpl., filed April 15, 2005, at 3.) 

During 2002, Ane Deister (“Deister”), the general manager of

EID, repeatedly chastised and verbally abused plaintiff because

he reported various misrepresentations, violations of the Brown

Act, and improper coercion of subordinate employees by

defendants. (Id.) 

In April 2003, Deister solicited negative comments from

other personnel to use against plaintiff with the intent to

terminate him. (Id. at 4.) David Powell (“Powell”), who served

as EID Director of Facilities Management, drafted a notice of

intent to terminate plaintiff. (Id.) After a public meeting on

April 21, 2003, Deister, Powell, Thomas Cumpston (“Cumpston”)

(general counsel for EID), George Wheeldon (“Wheeldon”) (member

of the board of directors), and George Osborne (“Osborne”)

(member of the board of directors) discussed plaintiff’s

termination. (Id.) In the course of their discussion, these

individuals sought and provided information that could be used

against plaintiff. (Id.) 

On May 1, 2003, Deister ordered plaintiff and other EID

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 7
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

staff to withhold information from the Board and the public

regarding anticipated delays to complete facilities needed to

provide drinking water to customers in the District. (Id.) 

Later that month plaintiff reported misrepresentations and

violations of law by EID to the El Dorado County Grand Jury, the

California Department of Fish and Game, the California State

Water Resource Control Board, the California Department of Health

Services, the California Attorney General’s office, and a private

group, Citizens for Water. (Id.) In response, Deister and

Cumpston attempted to prevent plaintiff from speaking at a

conference, and Deister made false representations to others

regarding the quality of plaintiff’s work with EID. (Id.)

Plaintiff continued to report problems with EID. From May

to June 2003, he reported problems in two EID water reports to

the Sacramento Bee, Mountain Democrat, and the El Dorado Hills

Telegraph. (Id. at 4.) In July 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint

to the Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health

Administration concerning EID’s meter sales. (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiff once again appeared before the El Dorado County Grand

Jury in July of 2003. (Id.) On September 9, 2003, plaintiff

delivered a presentation involving water issues in El Dorado

Hills, California to 50 individuals, which was reported in local

newspapers. On November 15, 2003, the Citizens Water Advisory

Board confirmed plaintiff’s allegations regarding the inadequacy

of EID’s water supply and infrastructure as well as its false

reporting. (Id.) 

EID delivered notice of intent to terminate plaintiff on

August 8, 2003. (Id.) An abbreviated Skelly hearing was held

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 3 of 7
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

where all issues were not fully litigated. (Id.) On September

11, 2003, EID terminated plaintiff. (Id.) On March 29, 2004,

the Board of Directors of EID completed an abbreviated appeal of

plaintiff’s termination and upheld EID’s decision. (Id.; Opp’n,

filed September 9, 2005, at 3.) Plaintiff presented a written

claim for damages with the Clerk of the Board of Directors of EID

on September 10, 2004. (Pl.’s Cmpl. at 3.)

On the basis of these facts, plaintiff alleges claims

against defendants for: (1) violation of plaintiff’s federal

civil rights under 28 U.S.C. section 1983, (2) conspiracy to

violate plaintiff’s federal civil rights under 28 U.S.C. section

1983, and (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 

By the instant motion, defendants move to dismiss the wrongful

termination claim.

STANDARD 

On a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint

must be accepted as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322

(1972). The court is bound to give the plaintiff the benefit of

every reasonable inference to be drawn from the “well-pleaded”

allegations of the complaint. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n v.

Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746, 753 n.6 (1963). Thus, the plaintiff

need not necessarily plead a particular fact if that fact is a

reasonable inference from facts properly alleged. See id. 

Given that the complaint is construed favorably to the

pleader, the court may not dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff

can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would

entitle him or her to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 4 of 7
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

(1957); NL Industries, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th

 Cir. 1986).

Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to assume that the

plaintiff “can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the

defendant ha[s] violated the . . . laws in ways that have not

been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal.

State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). Moreover,

the court “need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in

the form of factual allegations.” United States ex rel. Chunie

v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for wrongful

termination in violation of pubic policy, arguing that plaintiff

failed to timely comply with the California Tort Claims Act

(“CTCA”). California Government Code section 911.2 provides:

A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for

injury to person or to personal property or growing crops

shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with

Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of

the cause of action.

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim

accrued on September 11, 2003, the date EID terminated plaintiff.

To the contrary, plaintiff asserts that his claim accrued on

March 29, 2004, the date the EID Board of Directors completed an

abbreviated appeal of plaintiff’s termination and upheld EID’s

decision to terminate plaintiff. Thus, this court must determine

when plaintiff’s claim accrued. 

A wrongful termination claim accrues when the employment

relationship is “actually terminated, not the date on which an

employee is unequivocally informed his employment will be

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 5 of 7
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 In Embury, the issue presented was whether the

plaintiff’s claim began to accrue when he was informed he would

be terminated. The court, applying Romano v. Rockwell Int’l,

Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 479 (1996), held that “the statute of

limitations for a wrongful termination cause of action begins to

run when a plaintiff is actually terminated, not when he is given

notice of impending termination.” Id. at 1081.

6

terminated.” Colores v. Board of Trustees, 105 Cal. App. 4th

1293, 1320 (2003). Plaintiff concedes he was terminated on

September 11, 2003, and that generally, a claim for wrongful

termination accrues on the date of actual termination. 

Nonetheless, he argues, in this case, his claim was “premature,”

and thus had not accrued, until his appeal was finalized. (Pl’s.

Opp. Mtn. Dis. at 3.) The parties did not cite, nor is the court

aware of, any precedential authority determining whether the

exercise of appeal rights alters the accrual of a wrongful

termination claim.

The court, however, finds the decision in Embury v. King,

191 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2001) instructive because even

though it does not decide the issue directly,1 it raises similar

facts. In Embury, the plaintiff, an associate professor of

medicine, was terminated from his position on December 31, 1999. 

Id. at 1075. Thereafter, in May 2000, he filed a grievance to

his employer university’s Committee on Privilege and Tenure

objecting to his termination. In January of 2001, the committee

completed its investigation, denying the plaintiff all his

requested relief. Id. Despite these later grievance

proceedings, the court found that the plaintiff’s wrongful

termination claim accrued on the date of termination, December

31, 1999. Id. at 1081. 

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Like Embury, here, the court finds that plaintiff’s wrongful

termination claim accrued on the date of plaintiff’s termination,

September 11, 2003, not when the appeal was finalized on March

29, 2004. Similarly the date of a court judgment is not altered

by an appeal of the judgment so an employee’s administrative

appeal of his termination does not affect the termination date

itself. Plaintiff concedes he was terminated on September 11,

2003; that fact is in no way altered by his internal appeal of

his termination. As such, plaintiff’s CTCA claim, filed

September 10, 2004, is untimely; plaintiff’s claim was due at the

latest on March 4, 2004.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss as

to plaintiff’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of

public policy is GRANTED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00740-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 09/22/05 Page 7 of 7