(PS) Johnston v. City of Red Bluff, et al, No. 2:2009cv01353 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/20/09 RECOMMENDING that dfts motion to dismiss be granted; dft Frolli be dismissed with prejudice; claim 2 be dismissed with prejudice; complaint be dismissed with leave to amend; 15 motion to dismiss referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections due within 20 days. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Johnston v. City of Red Bluff, et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT JOHNSTON, 12 13 14 No. CIV S-09-1353-FCD-CMK Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF RED BLUFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff brings this civil action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 18 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against the City of Red Bluff and various of its employees, as 19 well as Art Frolli, a union representative for Operating Engineers Local No. 3.1 Plaintiff alleges 20 age discrimination and related constitutional and state law torts with respect to his employment 21 as an engineering technician for defendant City of Red Bluff. All defendants have been served. 22 Defendants City of Red Bluff, Nichols, Pritchard, Barthel, and Crabtree (the “city defendants”) 23 filed an answer to the complaint on June 5, 2009.2 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff does not name the union as a defendant. 2 A scheduling conference is set for October 29, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pending before the court is defendant Frolli’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15). The 2 matter was heard on August 27, 2009, in Redding, California. Plaintiff appeared pro se. James 3 Ackerman, Esq., of the Law Offices of Nevin and Absalom appeared for defendant Frolli. James 4 A. Wyatt, Esq., of the Law Offices of James A. Wyatt appeared for the city defendants. 5 6 I. BACKGROUND 7 Plaintiff was hired by defendant City of Red Bluff in August 2000 as an 8 Engineering Technician I (“Tech I”). He states that, based on his experience and background, he 9 was disappointed that he was not offered the position of Engineering Technician II (“Tech II”), 10 but was told by his supervisor that “as things work your advancement would come quickly.”3 11 Plaintiff states that, shortly after he began employment, he learned that the city only had positions 12 for one Tech I and one Tech II and that advancement to the Tech II level could only occur upon 13 retirement of the individual who held that position. Plaintiff adds that Bill Hinek, who had 14 worked for 20 years as a Tech I, was promoted to the Tech II position just before plaintiff was 15 hired and that the Tech II position was never posted or put out to bid. 16 Plaintiff claims that, “some time in 2001,” the position of Engineering Technician 17 III (“Tech III”) position was created for senior technicians. Plaintiff was informed at this time 18 that the city could have more than one Tech III and that there was no reason why he could not 19 advance to that position over time. Plaintiff states that, in 2001, Hinek was promoted to Tech III 20 and that the position was not posted or put out to bid. Plaintiff was promoted to the Tech II 21 position in February 2002. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 3 Plaintiff had worked in the field for 20 years and was 43 years old when hired. 2 1 By August 2004, plaintiff had reached the top of the Tech II classification and 2 expected that he would be promoted to Tech III. Plaintiff states that he was told by defendant 3 Barthel that he was not qualified for the Tech III position. Plaintiff disagreed with this 4 assessment in that, as a Tech II, he had been doing the same work Hinek was performing as a 5 Tech III. Plaintiff states that Barthel then responded that there was not enough money in the city 6 budget to promote plaintiff to the Tech III level. Plaintiff states that he believes he was not 7 promoted because Barthel disliked him and that, when he approached other city defendants with 8 this complaint, they did nothing. Plaintiff was repeatedly denied promotion. 9 According to plaintiff, Hinek retired in May 2007 and he believed that he would 10 then be promoted to the Tech III position. By August 2007, however, he was told that there was 11 still insufficient money in the budget for him to be promoted to Tech III. Plaintiff states that, 12 over the course of the next year, he performed the duties of both the Tech II and Tech III 13 positions and was thanked by Barthel for his hard work. 14 Plaintiff states that, “[s]ometime in May of 2008” he learned that a job opening 15 for a Tech II/III had been posted. He adds that “[t]here was no doubt in the Plaintiff’s mind that 16 Defendant Mark Barthel would hire someone at around the lowest step of Tech II, and that this 17 would finally create an opportunity for him to be promoted to Tech III.” Plaintiff claims that the 18 “general practice” had been to promote from within. Nonetheless, a new person – Vinnie 19 Pagnano – was hired in June 2008 as a Tech III and plaintiff was not promoted. 20 Plaintiff states that, when he questioned Barthel about this situation in August 21 2008, Barthel “acted surprised” and “simply acted angry.” Plaintiff states that he was so upset by 22 this that he was compelled to take several days off of work and that he had little sleep during this 23 time. On August 18, 2008, plaintiff sent an email entitled “Enough is Enough” to several city 24 officials outlining the promotion problem. He sent a copy of this email to his union 25 representative, defendant Frolli. According to plaintiff, defendant Frolli responded by asking 26 plaintiff to send him copies of the job descriptions for the Tech II and Tech III positions, which 3 1 plaintiff did. 2 Plaintiff took more time off from work on August 21 and 22 because he was 3 “fatigued and too upset to work.” On August 25, 2008, plaintiff sent Frolli another email 4 “stating that he hadn’t heard anything, and provided him with his cell phone number . . . .” 5 Plaintiff later heard from defendant Frolli who told him that, because the positions were not 6 designated as “flex positions,” the city was under no obligation to promote from within. Plaintiff 7 states that “Defendant Art Frolli did not seem concerned about the circumstances surrounding 8 changes in management, the things prior supervisors had said, or the qualifications of the new 9 employee.” Plaintiff claims that defendant Frolli “did not seem to have enough knowledge about 10 the job to help, and rather than admit that, he pretended to have everything under control, the 11 answer he gave the Plaintiff would not require him to do anything more.” Plaintiff filed a 12 complaint on the city’s personal injury form on October 21, 2008, after no progress had been 13 made on his case. By November 2008, plaintiff believed that he was being “set-up to be laid 14 off.” Plaintiff alleges that Frolli was part of this “conspiracy.” 15 According to Plaintiff, in late October 2008 defendant Frolli sent an email 16 outlining the details of a conversation with defendant Pritchard, the Director of Human 17 Resources for the City of Red Bluff. Plaintiff states: 18 . . . This email contained Defendant Art Frolli’s interpretation of what Defendant Tessa Pritchard allegedly said, much of which were fairly bold misrepresentations or outright lies about the Plaintiff’s qualifications and those of the new man Vinnie Pagnano. The email concluded with the same rhetoric, about the job classification not specifying that it was a “Flex” position, therefore, Defendant Red Bluff had done nothing wrong. 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff responded to this email by advising Frolli that what defendant Pritchard had told him 23 was untrue. Plaintiff provided Frolli with “additional details” and “rightfully protesting that he 24 [Frolli] appeared to simply be accepting Defendant Tessa Pritchard’s version of the story.” 25 /// 26 /// 4 1 Plaintiff adds: 2 . . . To this, Defendant Art Frolli fired back an email rebuffing the Plaintiff for making such a suggestion, and then presented some questions that he said had not been answered that would need to be addressed if this issue was to ever be brought before an arbitrator. The Plaintiff immediately responded, providing answers to these questions, but never received a reply. 3 4 5 6 Concerned with the alleged misinformation provided by Pritchard to Frolli, on 7 November 12, 2008, plaintiff sent Pritchard and Frolli a seven-page document outlining the 8 “Essential Duties and Responsibilities” of the Tech II and Tech III positions. Plaintiff followed 9 up with an email to Frolli on December 8, 2008. According to plaintiff, “[Frolli] sent an email 10 back stating that he had not heard from her [Pritchard], and characterized the document as ‘well 11 thought out and complete,’ but did not offer any other comments.” 12 Plaintiff states that, “[s]ince November of 2008” he had suffered “nearly sleepless 13 Sunday nights, as the anguish of returning to work the next day would consume his thoughts.” 14 He also states that he was being isolated and taken “out of the loop” at work. In February 2009 15 plaintiff began researching the law on age discrimination and sent Frolli an email “questioning 16 why he had not recognized this as age discrimination.” Frolli responded that, because plaintiff 17 had never applied for the Tech III position when it was posted, there was no reason for the city to 18 have considered him for the position. By March 2009 the city began laying off various workers. 19 Plaintiff states: 20 Upon information and belief, around this time in March 2009, there was a meeting between Defendant Art Frolli and the union members to discuss what would happen next. He explained that any layoffs would be conducted according to seniority, except in the case of one career position, where one employee had more education than the other. To those in attendance, this was taken to be a direct reference to the Plaintiff. 21 22 23 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 5 1 He adds: 2 Upon information and belief, Defendants Red Bluff, Martin Nichols, Tessa Pritchard, and Mark Barthel will pursue to lay off more employees, including the Plaintiff, while not laying off the new employee, Vinnie Pagnano. . . . Defendant Art Frolli will participate in this process. 3 4 5 Plaintiff states that, as a result of his treatment, he “lost his identity [at] this 6 workplace that was once so familiar,” lost sleep on Sunday nights, and developed difficulty 7 walking. 8 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 11 Beginning on page 24 of the complaint, plaintiff alleges eight claims for relief as follows: 12 Claim 1 Age discrimination in violation of ADEA; 13 Claim 2 Denial of substantive due process; 14 Claim 3 Denial of procedural due process; 15 Claim 4 Civil conspiracy; 16 Claim 5 Civil conspiracy and fraud; 17 Claim 6 Civil conspiracy, fraud, and wrongful termination; 18 Claim 7 Deceit, defamation, and infliction of emotion distress; and 19 Claim 8 Negligence. 20 In his motion, defendant Frolli argues: (1) plaintiff’s claim in Claim 1 for violation of ADEA is 21 not cognizable as a matter of law; (2) plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim in 22 Claim 2 for violation of substantive due process; (3) plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to 23 support a claim in Claim 3 for violation of procedural due process; (4) plaintiff fails to allege 24 sufficient facts to support a claim in Claim 4 for civil conspiracy; (5) plaintiff’s claim in Claim 4 25 for civil conspiracy is not cognizable as a matter of law; (6) plaintiff fails to allege sufficient 26 facts to support claims in Claim 5 of civil conspiracy and fraud; (7) plaintiff’s claim in Claim 5 6 1 of civil conspiracy is duplicative of Claim 4; (8) plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support 2 a claim in Claim 6 for wrongful termination; (9) plaintiff’s claims in Claim 6 of civil conspiracy 3 and fraud are duplicative of Claim 5; (10) Claim 7 is duplicative of Claims 5 and 6; (11) plaintiff 4 fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim in Claim 7 of defamation; (12) plaintiff fails to 5 allege sufficient facts to support a claim in Claim 7 of infliction of emotional distress; and 6 (13) plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support a claim in Claim 8 of negligence against 7 defendant Frolli. 8 A. 9 Claim 1 In Claim 1, plaintiff alleges violation of ADEA. According to defendant, ADEA 10 “covers actions [against] employees age 40 and over [by] employers in industries affecting 11 commerce with 20 or more full time employees.” See 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), (f). Defendant argues 12 that ADEA does not provide any cause of action against an individual. Defendant is correct. See 13 Miller v. Maxwell’s Intern, Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, as defendant 14 notes, only employers can be liable. Here, defendant Frolli was not plaintiff’s employer. For 15 these reasons, defendant Frolli is not a proper defendant with respect to plaintiff’s ADEA claim.4 16 B. Claim 2 17 In Claim 2, plaintiff alleges denial of substantive due process.5 Defendant Frolli 18 argues that plaintiff cannot state a substantive due process claim against him because he is not a 19 state actor. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937). He also argues more generally 20 that plaintiff cannot state substantive due process claim because plaintiff’s employment issues do 21 4 22 23 24 Likewise, none of the individual city defendants are proper defendants. Only defendant City of Red Bluff is a proper defendant to plaintiff’s ADEA claim. However, because plaintiff paid the filing fees for this case, the court cannot dismiss the ADEA claim as against the other individual defendants sua sponte under its screening power. Because they have filed an answer to the complaint, the other individual defendants would have to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for dismissal of the ADEA claim against them. 25 5 26 Defendant correctly notes that plaintiff fails to specify whether his substantive due process claim is brought under the federal constitution, the California constitution, or both. 7 1 not relate to a fundamental right. See also Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 2 (1976) (holding that a right to governmental employment is not a fundamental right protected by 3 substantive due process). The court agrees with defendant Frolli that plaintiff cannot state a 4 substantive due process claim. Regardless of whether Frolli is a state actor, plaintiff’s right to 5 employment is not a fundamental right for purposes of substantive due process protection.6 6 C. Claim 3 In Claim 3, plaintiff alleges denial of procedural due process.7 Defendant argues 7 8 that plaintiff does not state a claim as to Frolli because plaintiff fails to allege any facts indicating 9 the denial of any procedural guarantees with respect to a protected liberty interest. Specifically, 10 defendant contends that, because this case is about alleged employment discrimination, the only 11 interest at stake is plaintiff’s property interest in employment. While defendant concedes that 12 procedural protections apply to such an interest, see Armstrong v. Myers, 964 F.2d 948, 950 (9th 13 Cir. 1992), defendant concludes that plaintiff fails to state a claim because he does not allege in 14 the operative pleading that his employment has ended. 15 A review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff does not, in fact, allege that his 16 employment has ended. Therefore, defendant Frolli is correct in this regard. Moreover, as with 17 plaintiff’s substantive due process claim, defendant Frolli is not a state actor. Because Frolli is 18 not a state actor, plaintiff cannot state a due process claim or any other constitutional claims 19 against him as a matter of law. However, plaintiff may be able to state constitutional claims 20 against the remaining city defendants. The court notes that plaintiff states in his opposition to 21 defendant Frolli’s motion to dismiss that his employment was terminated on July 31, 2009 – after 22 the original complaint was filed. Therefore, it is possible that plaintiff can cure the defect in 23 24 6 Because defendant Frolli’s motion attacks the entire claim and not just as it is asserted against him, Claim 3 should be dismissed in its entirety. 25 7 26 Again, he does not state whether this claim arises under the state or federal constitution, or both. 8 1 Claim 3 discussed above with respect to a procedural due process claim against the city 2 defendants by amending the complaint to allege that his employment was terminated. Plaintiff 3 will be provided an opportunity to amend as to Claim 3. 4 D. 5 Claim 4 In Claim 4, plaintiff alleges a civil conspiracy. As defendant Frolli correctly 6 notes, a plaintiff alleging a conspiracy in a federal case must allege with sufficient factual 7 particularity that the defendants reached some “explicit or tacit understanding or agreement.” 8 Alfus v. Pyramid Technology Corp, 745 F. Supp. 1511, 1521 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Defendant Frolli 9 argues that plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest that he formed an agreement with any 10 other defendant with respect to plaintiff’s employment. Based upon a review of the complaint, 11 the court agrees. Plaintiff’s specific factual allegations as to Frolli relate to emails plaintiff sent 12 him, Frolli’s responses thereto, and Frolli’s alleged inaction with respect to a possible ADEA 13 claim. 14 Plaintiff argues that defendant Frolli’s alleged failure to properly represent him 15 with respect to his employment problems is sufficient to show a tacit agreement. This argument 16 is unpersuasive because plaintiff does not allege any relationship between Frolli and any of the 17 other defendants such that, even if Frolli failed to adequately represent plaintiff, the failure could 18 be understood as furthering any kind of agreement with the other defendants. Frolli’s conduct, as 19 alleged, is separate from and unrelated to the alleged conduct of the other defendants. 20 The court is mindful of plaintiff’s allegation that, in October 2008, defendant 21 Frolli sent him an email outlining the details of a conversation between Frolli and defendant 22 Pritchard, and that plaintiff claims Frolli had accepted Pritchard’s alleged misrepresentations 23 regarding “the Plaintiff’s qualifications and those of the new man Vinnie Pagnano.” This 24 allegation does not indicate any kind of agreement between Frolli and Pritchard regarding 25 plaintiff’s employment. Rather, it indicates an alleged misunderstanding on the part of Frolli. 26 This is borne out by plaintiff’s allegation that he later sent Frolli a seven-page document 9 1 outlining the “Essential Duties and Responsibilities” of the Tech II and Tech III positions, which 2 Frolli stated was well-written and which he discussed with Pritchard. 3 The court is also mindful of plaintiff’s allegation that, in March 2009, Frolli met 4 with union members to discuss ongoing layoffs and that, according to plaintiff, Frolli stated that 5 additional layoffs would happen in the future according to seniority, except as to plaintiff’s 6 position because Pagnano had more education than plaintiff. Plaintiff adds that “Defendant Art 7 Frolli will participate in this process.” These allegations, however, do not indicate any 8 agreement between Frolli and any other defendant regarding plaintiff’s employment. Instead, 9 they represent Frolli’s statements of what he anticipated at the time would happen in the future 10 regarding layoffs and, in general, how he believed layoffs would be prioritized. As to plaintiff’s 11 allegation that Frolli would participate in the layoff process, this statement is entirely conclusory 12 and is not attended with sufficient particularity to suggest a plausible basis for conspiracy. 13 Moreover, even accepting that Frolli would participate in the layoff process, his mere 14 participation does not indicate an agreement with any other defendant with respect to plaintiff in 15 particular. 16 E. 17 Claim 5 In Claim 5, plaintiff re-alleges a civil conspiracy, and also alleges fraud. 18 Defendant is correct that the claim is duplicative of Claim 4 as to civil conspiracy. As to fraud, 19 defendant argues that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show the elements of fraud under 20 state law. In California, fraud requires: (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent 21 to defraud or induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damage. See Lazar v. Superior 22 Court, 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996). Defendant concludes that plaintiff cannot state a fraud claim 23 because he has not alleged any facts to show that defendant Frolli misrepresented anything he 24 knew to be false. Defendant is correct. As to Frolli, plaintiff alleges that he investigated the 25 Tech II and III position descriptions in response to plaintiff’s emails and informed plaintiff that, 26 because these positions were “flex positions,” there was no obligation to offer plaintiff internal 10 1 promotion. Further, defendant Frolli told plaintiff that there was no obligation to hire plaintiff 2 for the Tech III position which had been posted in 2008 because he never applied for that 3 position. None of these allegations relate to any known falsehood related to plaintiff by Frolli. 4 Plaintiff simply has not stated any claim of fraud as against Frolli. For the reasons discussed 5 above, the court does not find any misrepresentation suggested by plaintiff’s allegation that Frolli 6 accepted Pritchard’s allegedly false statements regarding his job performance and qualifications. 7 F. 8 9 Claim 6 In Claim 6, plaintiff alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, and wrongful termination. As to the claims of civil conspiracy and fraud, Claim 6 is duplicative of Claims 4 and 5. As to 10 wrongful termination, defendant Frolli correctly argues that, because plaintiff does not allege in 11 the operative complaint that he was ever terminated or that his employment ended, he cannot 12 maintain a claim of wrongful termination. Because it appears, however, that plaintiff’s 13 employment was terminated after the original complaint was filed, plaintiff will be given an 14 opportunity to amend the complaint with respect to his wrongful termination claim against the 15 city defendants.8 16 G. 17 Claim 7 In Claim 7, plaintiff alleges deceit, defamation, and infliction of emotional 18 distress. Under California law, deceit and fraud have the same elements. See Small v. Fritz 19 Companies, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 167, 173 (2003). Defendant Frolli argues that plaintiff cannot 20 maintain a deceit claim for the same reason discussed above that he cannot maintain a fraud 21 claim. Specifically, as to Frolli, plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that Frolli misrepresented 22 any knowingly false information. This argument is persuasive. 23 /// 24 /// 25 8 26 For the reasons discussed below in the context of Claim 8, however, plaintiff cannot proceed with such a claim against defendant Frolli. 11 1 As to defamation, defendant Frolli argues that, under California law, defamation 2 requires a publication. See Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 (2007). Defendant concludes 3 that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against him for defamation because plaintiff has 4 not alleged what words Frolli published or, for that matter, that Frolli published anything at all 5 about plaintiff. Defendant Frolli is correct.9 6 As to infliction of emotional distress, defendant Frolli addresses both intentional 7 and negligent infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff’s complaint does not specify 8 which claim he is raising. Regarding the former, defendant correctly notes that California law 9 requires as an essential element extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant, see Cole v. 10 Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist., 43 Cal.3d 148, 155 (1987), and concludes that plaintiff cannot 11 state a claim because he has not alleged any such conduct on the part of Frolli. Regarding the 12 latter, defendant Frolli correctly observes that plaintiff has not alleged any of the elements of 13 negligence as to Frolli’s conduct and, for this reason, concludes that he cannot maintain a claim 14 of negligent infliction of emotional distress.10 15 H. Claim 8 16 In Claim 8, plaintiff alleges general negligence. As defendant correctly notes, 17 plaintiff cannot prevail on a negligence claim (or on any other theory, for that matter) against 18 Frolli. Under the Taft-Harley Act the union is the sole source of recovery for the alleged conduct 19 of individual union representatives. See Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 (1962). 20 A plaintiff cannot subvert the Taft-Hartley Act by suing individual union agents or 21 22 23 24 25 26 9 As discussed below regarding Claim 8, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend as to Frolli. Regarding the remaining city defendants, defendant Frolli’s motion is only directed to plaintiff’s allegations as against him and, for this reason, the sufficiency of plaintiff’s allegations as against the city defendants are not at issue and the court expresses no opinion in this regard. The city defendants are free, however, to file a Rule 12(c) motion if they desire. 10 See discussion regarding Claim 8 for further analysis of negligence and Frolli’s liability in general. And, again, the sufficiency of plaintiff’s allegations as against the remaining city defendants is not at issue. 12 1 representatives. See id. For this reason, the court concludes that plaintiff cannot state any claim 2 against Frolli individually for alleged actions taken as his union representative.11 3 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 6 1. Defendant Frolli’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) be granted; 7 2. Defendant Frolli be dismissed with prejudice; 8 3. Claim 2, alleging denial of substantive due process, be dismissed with 10 4. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days 13 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 15 Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 16 the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 prejudice; and 17 18 19 DATED: November 20, 2009 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 26 Plaintiff may, in an amended complaint, name the union to seek recovery based on Frolli’s alleged conduct. 13
]]>
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.
