N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ENJAM IN C . OYAR

ZO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JOSEPH TUR

NER ; DAR

LENE HUTC HINS, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16653 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01271-SAB
M EM O R ANDUM *

B ENJAM IN C . OYAR

ZO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. TUOLUM

NE FIR E DISTR IC T, AKA Tuolum ne Fire Prote c t i on Distric t; KENNETH HOC K ETT; TONEY POW ER S, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15253 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01271-SAB



# FIL ED D EC 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.NIC HOLAS HAR T,

Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. TUOLUM

NE FIR E DISTR IC T, AKA Tuolum ne Fire Prote c t i on Distric t; KENNETH HOC K ETT, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16075 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01271-SAB

NIC HOLAS HAR T, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. KENNETH HOC K ETT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-16076 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01271-SAB

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ, M U R GUIA, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. B e nja m in Oy arz o a

nd Nic hola s Ha

rt a p pe a l a se rie s of distric t c ourt rulings in the ir suit a ga inst the Tuolum ne Fire Distric t a

nd va rious fire distric t offic ia ls. 2For the following re a sons, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt in pa

rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd
re m and. 1. W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s gra n t of sum m ary judgm e nt for the fire distric t on the c la im s unde r C a lifornia La bor C ode se c tion 1102.5. All pa rtie s c orre c tly a g re e tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on the p la intiffs’ fa ilure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e d ie s. Adm inistra tive
e xha ustion is not ge

ne ra l ly re quire d to bring a c ivil a c tion unde r the C a lifornia La bor C ode , a

n d the spe c ific se c tion in que stion im pose s no suc h

re quire m e nt. C a l. La b. C ode §§ 244(a ), 1102.5; c f. Me lgar v . C

SK Auto, Inc
. , No. C -13-3769 EM C , 2014 W L 546915, a

t *4-5 (N.D. C a l. Fe b. 7, 2014) (holding tha t a dm inistra

tive
e xha ustion is not re q

uire d for La

bor C ode c a se s brought be fore e na c tm e nt of
se c t ion 244(a))

. W e re m and so tha t the distric t c ourt m a

y c o nside r in the first insta nc e the de fe nda

nts’ a l te rnative argum e nts for sum m a ry judgm e nt. 1 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for the fire distric t on Oy arz o’ s c la im tha t he wa s im

prope rly de nie d a

n a dm inistra

tive he aring unde r the C a lifornia

Fire fighte rs Proc e dura l B i ll of Ri ghts Ac t , C a lifornia Gove rnm e nt C ode se c t ions 3250-3262. Oyarz o a lle ge d in his c om pla int a nd during

1 W e the re fore de ny

a s m oot the de fe n da

n t s’ M otion for Judic ia l Notic e of se c t ion 1102.5's le gisla

tive history
. 3disc ove ry

tha t the fire distric t viola

te d his proc e dura l rights during a n inve stiga

tion into his tenure a s fire c hie f. Those a lle gations invoke d prote c tions unde r se c tion 3253. In opposition to sum m a ry judgm e nt, Oy arz o shifte d his c la im and a lle ge d for the first tim e tha

t his te rmination trigge re d the right to a

n a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l unde r se c tion 3254(b) be c a u s e it wa s a punitivea c tion. Thedistric t c o urt did not
e rr in re fusing to c onside r the be late d c la im
. Se eLa Asoc iac ion de Trabajadore

s de Lak e Fore st v . C ity of Lak e Fore st , 624 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding that a pa rty c ould not e ffe c tive ly

am e nd a c om pla int “by ra ising a ne wthe ory

. . . in its re sponse to a

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t” ). 3. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for boa

rd
m e m b e rs Da rle ne Hutc hins a

n d Jose ph Turne r on Oy arz o’ s First Am e n dm e nt
c la im tha t the y de te rre d him from prote c te d politic a l a c tivity . In his opposition to
sum m ary judgm e nt, Oy arz o sta

te d tha t his de te rre nc e c la im

re lie d on a
c onve rsation he ha d with Turne r, in whic h Oy arz o a lle ge dly sta te d tha t he inte nde d to c o ntinue pursuing the

anne xation of a dditiona l la nd into the

fire distric t. B ut Oy a rz o fa ile d to m e ntion thec onve rsat ion in his c om pla int or disc lose it in
re sponse to a

n on-point inte

rrogatory , re ve a ling it for the first tim e in a

de c la ra tion supporting his opposition to sum m ary judgm e n t. The distric t c ourt e xc lude d the
e vide nc e unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 37(c )(1) and gra nte d sum m ary 4judgm e nt a s a re sult. W e re v ie w a

distric t c ourt’ s disc ove ry sa nc tions for a

buse of disc re tion. Ye ti by

Molly , Ltd. v . De c k

e rs Outdoor C

orp. , 259 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th C ir. 2001). Give n Oy arz o’ s fa ilure to inc lude the re l e va nt c onve rsation in his
c om pla i nt or disc l ose it during disc ove ry , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding thee vide nc e and gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e id. at 1106 (“ [W ] e give pa

rtic u l arly wide lat itude to the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to issue
sa nc tions unde r R

ule 37(c )(1).” ). 4. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt for the fire distric t on Ha

rt’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im . Ha rt a rgue s tha t the fire distric t a s a

n e ntity re ta lia te d a ga inst him

for e nga ging in prote c te d politic a l a c tivity . Ha rt, howe v e r, ha s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r boa

rd
m e m b e rs othe r tha

n Hoc ke tt a c te d with re t a lia tory inte nt. Se eK

aw aok a v . C ity of Arroy o Grande , 17 F.3d 1227, 1239 (9th C ir. 1994). 5. W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s sua sponte ruling tha

t fire distric t boa

rd
m e m b e rs e n joy e d a b solute im

m unity for the boa

rd vote tha

t re orga niz e d the distric t, re sulting in Oyarz o’ s de m otion a nd Ha rt’ s te rm ination. A de fe nda nt be ars the b urde n to ple a d a

nd prove an a ffirm ative im m unity de fe n se . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8(c ) ; Slate r v . C

l ark e , 700 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th C i r. 2012). It is there fore im prope r for a d istric t c ourt to inde pe nde ntly ra i se the issue of a

b solute im

m unity and rule 5on it, a

t le a st whe re a

pla intiff ha s no opportunity to re spond. Se e ge n e rally W ong
v . Be ll , 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th C ir. 1981) (obse rving tha t a c ourt m

ust a fford pla i ntiffs a

n opportunity

to re spond to a distric t’ s c ourts “ sua sponte inte ntion” to dism iss a c om pla int). W e re m and so thepa rtie s m ay fully a ddre ss whe the r the vote in que stion wa s a

le gisla tive a c t a nd the re fore c onfe rre d a

bsolute im

m unity on the boa rd m e m be rs. Se eBogan v . Sc ott-Harris , 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998). 2 6. W e va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re duc ing the c om pe nsatory dam a ge s a

ward. The c ourt e rrone ously sta te d tha t it wa s a c ting pursua

nt to R ule 50 rathe r tha

n R ule 59, a s Hoc ke tt ha d not file d a R ule 50 m otion. Thedistric t
c ourt a lso e rre d in re fusing to offe r Hart a ne w tria l a fte r va c at ing the jury ’ s a ward
and substituting nom

ina l da m a g e s of $1. Unde r the Se v e nth Am e ndm e nt, “ a c ourt ha s no a uthority , upon a

m otion for a

ne w tria l, ‘ a c c o rding to its own e stim ate of the a m ount of da

m a ge s whic h the pla intiff ought to ha ve re c ove re d, to e n te r an a bsolute judgm e nt for a

ny othe r sum

tha n tha t a sse sse d by the jury
. ’ ” He tze l v
.

2 If the distric t c ourt c onc lude s tha t the de fe nda

nt boa rd m e m b e rs a re not e ntitle d to a

bsolute im

m unity , the c ourt should a ddre ss the boa rd m e m be rs’ c la im of qua lifie d im

m unity . If the distric t c ourt de te rm ine s tha t the boa rd m e m be rs a re e ntitle d to ne i the r a

bsolute im

m unity nor qua lifie d im

m unity , the n the c ourt should a llow Ha rt to proc e e d with his First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im tha t a lle ge s lia bility for his te rm ination. 6Princ eW

illiam C t y ., Va. , 523 U.S. 208, 211 (1998) (quoting K e nnon v . Gilme r , 131 U.S. 22, 29 (1889)). 3 7. Fina lly , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s ruling de ny ing Ha rt attorne y ’ s fe e s in his a c tion a ga i nst Hoc k e tt. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 1988(b) (providing tha t a “ c ourt, in its disc re tion, m ay

a llow thepre va iling pa

rty . . . a re a sona ble attorne y ’ s fe e a s pa rt of the c osts” in a

§ 1983 a c tion). W

he the r a fe e award is justifie d will depe nd on the re sult of Ha

rt’ s ne w tria l on da

m a ge s. AFFIRM E D IN PART , V A C AT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D 4

3 W e do not disturb the

jury ’ s lia bility finding tha

t Hoc ke tt im

pe rm issibly re ta lia te d a g a inst Ha

rt be fore Ha

rt’ s te rm ination. 4 Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts on a ppe a l
. 7