NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTINE TANJAYA, DDS, an individual, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, an entity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55040 

D.C. No. 

2:19-cv-02956-GW-FFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: LINN,*** RAWLINSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Justine Tanjaya, DDS, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Title IX 

retaliation and sex discrimination/hostile environment claims. Tanjaya argues that

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 30 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

she sufficiently alleged Title IX claims and that the district court abused its 

discretion by considering the Regents of the University of California’s (University)

Title IX investigation report on a motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Title IX Claims: The factual allegations of the complaint, taken as 

true and construed in the light most favorable to Tanjaya, are insufficient to 

support her contention that the University’s response to her Title IX claim was 

“deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment . . . that is so severe, pervasive, and 

objectively offensive that it can be said to [have] deprive[d] [Tanjaya] of access to 

the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the [University],” Davis ex. 

rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999), or that 

the University retaliated against her because of her claim, see, e.g., Jackson v. 

Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 174 (2005). The factual allegations in the 

complaint also fail to show that the University’s handling of her Title IX claim was 

unreasonable. Karasek v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 956 F.3d 1093, 1108–09 (9th 

Cir. 2020). Tanjaya does not allege that any sexual harassment occurred after she 

reported her sexual harassment claim to the University’s Title IX office.1 See 

Stanley v. Trs. of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006). Nor does 

1 We grant Tanjaya’s request to take judicial notice of the University’s Sexual 

Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy. 
3 

she allege sufficient facts to establish that the University itself retaliated against 

her or had notice of the alleged retaliation after she filed her Title IX claim. 

Jackson, 544 U.S. at 174; Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 

285 (1998); Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir. 

2000).

2. Investigation Report: Even if the district court erred by considering 

the investigation report, reversal on that ground is unwarranted. The Second 

Amended Complaint’s failure to allege facts sufficient to support Tanjaya’s three 

Title IX causes of action independently supports the district court’s dismissal.

Therefore, the district court’s review of the report did not prejudice Tanjaya. Estate 

of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457, 462 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc)

(quoting Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev., LLC v. 'Sa' Nyu Wa Inc., 715 F.3d 1196, 

1202 (9th Cir.2013)) (stating “[a] district court’s evidentiary rulings should not be 

reversed absent clear abuse of discretion and some prejudice”) overruled on other

grounds in United States v. Bacon, No. 18-50120, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 WL

6498258 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2020) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.