Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02097-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melanie Bedwell
Defendant
Miles Bristow
Defendant
California Department of Consumer Affairs
Defendant
Steve Dakota
Defendant
Kevin Flanagan
Defendant
Russ Heimerich
Defendant
Glenn Mason
Defendant
Deborah Wells
Defendant
Lana Wilson-Combs
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----

LANA WILSON-COMBS,

NO. CIV. 07-2097 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

MOTION TO DISMISS RETALIATION

CLAIM

 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER AFFAIRS; RUSS

HEIMERICH; STEVE DAKOTA; MILES

BRISTOW; GLENN MASON; KEVIN

FLANAGAN; DEBORAH WELLS; MELANIE

BEDWELL; and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In its Order of January 28, 2008, this court granted in

part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Among the claims which this court did not dismiss were

plaintiff’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation

claims against the individual defendants. Cal. Gov’t Code §

12940(h). In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims,

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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

this court noted:

On June 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court granted

review of a case to decide the limited issue of

“[w]hether an individual may be held personally liable

for retaliation under [FEHA].” Because the California

Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision, this court

will follow the precedent allowing a plaintiff to bring

a retaliation claim against an individual. 

(Jan. 28, 2008 Order 7 n.3 (citation omitted).) 

Subsequent to this court’s Order, on March 3, 2008, the

California Supreme Court decided Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines

P’ship., No. S151022, 2008 WL 553670 (Cal. Mar. 3, 2008), stating

that an “employer, but not nonemployer individuals, may be held

liable” for retaliation under FEHA. Id. at *1. This court

accordingly ordered the parties to show cause why the court

should not now dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claims

against the individual defendants. 

The court has read and considered the parties’

respective positions with respect to the effect of Jones upon

this court’s Order of January 28, 2008. Defendants argue that

Jones requires the court to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation

claims against the individual defendants, and plaintiff contends

Jones does not apply to this case. 

Plaintiff first argues that this court should not

follow Jones because the California Supreme Court wrongly decided

the case. A federal court is required, however, to apply the law

of the highest state court when exercising jurisdiction over a

state law claim. See Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d

1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘In construing a state law, we

follow the decisions of the state’s highest court.’”) (citation

omitted); Hillery v. Rushen, 720 F.2d 1132, 1138 n.5 (9th Cir.

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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

1983) (“Federal courts exercising pendent jurisdiction over state

law claims must apply state law as the state’s highest court

would.”) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff next argues that Jones is distinguishable. 

In a footnote, the majority limited its holding to the specific

facts of that case. Specifically, the Jones plaintiff originally

filed a harassment claim against the individual defendant and

claimed that the defendant retaliated against him because he

complained about the alleged harassment; however, the trial court

held that the individual defendant was not liable for the alleged

harassment. Jones, 2008 WL 553670, at *6 n.4. Based on these

facts, the California Supreme Court drastically limited its

holding as follows: 

Justice Moreno’s dissent argues, in part, that a

supervisor who is liable for harassment should also be

liable for retaliating against someone who opposes or

reports that harassment. This case does not present that

situation. . . . Because the issue is not presented, we

express no opinion on whether an individual who is

personally liable for harassment might also be personally

liable for retaliating against someone who opposes or

reports that same harassment.

Id. (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff’s FEHA claims against the individual

defendants in this case fit squarely within the definition of the

kind of claim upon which the California Supreme Court stated in

the above footnote that it would express no opinion. (See First

Am. Compl. ¶ 50 (alleging that the individual defendants

“subjected Plaintiff to retaliation for opposing” the individual

defendants’ alleged harassment); see also Compl. ¶ 50 (alleging

that the individual defendants subjected plaintiff to retaliation

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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

for opposing the harassment by the individual defendants).) 

This court is therefore left in exactly the same

position as it was before Jones. “In the absence of a

pronouncement by the highest court of a state, the federal courts

must follow the decision of the intermediate appellate courts of

the state unless there is convincing evidence that the highest

court of the state would decide differently.” In re Watts, 298

F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and emphasis omitted);

accord Tenneco W., Inc. v. Marathon Oil Co., 756 F.2d 769, 771

(9th Cir. 1985) (“Where an intermediate appellate state court has

decided an issue of state law, that decision ‘is not to be

disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced . . . that

the highest court of the state would decide otherwise . . . .’”)

(citations omitted). 

Because the California Supreme Court in Jones has still

declined to hold that California Government Code section 12940(h)

precludes personal liability even if the individual defendant is

personally liable under the FEHA provision giving rise to the

retaliation claim, this court will adhere to its prior decision

and to “every published state and federal opinion to have

considered this issue.” Jones, 2008 WL 553670, at *21 (Moreno,

J., dissenting) (citations omitted); see also e.g., Page v.

Superior Court, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1206, 1211-12 (Cal. Ct. App.

1995); Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d

1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the court will not

revise its January 28, 2008 Order denying defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claims against the

individual defendants. 

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2008

 

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 26 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 5