XING JING V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, No. 15-55907 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 21 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XING WEI JING, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55907 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05207-DDPMAN v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Xing Wei Jing appeals pro se from the district court’s order in his employment action alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 * 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). F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jing’s wrongful termination claims as precluded by a final judgment on the merits in proceedings before the County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that California’s doctrine of claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory). The district court properly dismissed Jing’s claim for “employment defamation” because Jing failed to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988) (a plaintiff must allege compliance with California tort claims procedures in order to state a state law tort claim against a public employee). Appellees’ December 16, 2015 unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. Jing’s January 27, 2016 opposed motion to strike appellees’ answering brief is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55907

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.