Flesch v. County of Lake et al, No. 3:2021cv02018 - Document 44 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DENYING DEFENDANT BROWN'S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 16 Motion to Strike ; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/17/2021)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flesch v. County of Lake et al Doc. 44 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL G. FLESCH, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 COUNTY OF LAKE, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-02018-SI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; DENYING DEFENDANT BROWN'S MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 22 12 13 Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants Robert Brown and County of 14 Lake, and a motion to strike filed by defendant Robert Brown. Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 22. On July 23, 15 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 16 the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant Brown and the County of Lake, GRANTS plaintiff leave 17 to amend, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Brown’s Motion to Strike. 18 BACKGROUND 19 20 Plaintiff is a Senior Deputy District Attorney at the Lake County District Attorney’s Office. 21 Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 1. On March 23, 2021, plaintiff Daniel G. Flesch filed a complaint alleging fifteen 22 federal and state civil rights violations against defendants Robert Brown, the County of Lake, and 23 DOES 1-501: (1) Illegal Intrusion on First Amendment Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 24 U.S.C. §1983; (2) Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Official Policy, 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s Complaint named DOES 1-50 as defendants. In the Complaint, plaintiff stated that, “Plaintiff Flesch is not aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Does 1-50 and therefore, sues such Defendants by these fictitious names. Plaintiff Flesch will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4:3-5. 1 Dockets.Justia.com United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 14 1 Practice, or Custom in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (3) Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech 2 Monell Action-Based on Act of Final Policymaker in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (4) Retaliation 3 - Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Ratification in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (5) 4 Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Policy of Failure to Train or 5 Supervise in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (6) Discrimination – Equal Protection Civil Rights Claim 6 under 42 U.S.C. §1983; (7) Discrimination – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (8) 7 Retaliation – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (9) Retaliation – California Labor Code 8 §1102.5; (10) Religious Discrimination – California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (11) 9 Retaliation – California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (12) Harassment- California Fair 10 Employment and Housing Act; (13) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation 11 – California Fair Employment and Housing Act; (14) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 12 and (15) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 13 plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Brown in his capacity as a member of the Board of 14 Supervisors. Id. at ¶ 32. Dkt. No. 1. According to the complaint, 15 Plaintiff’s claims arise from investigations and disparaging comments allegedly made by 16 Defendant Brown, a member of the County of Lake Board of Supervisors, and plaintiff’s supervisors 17 and coworkers between August 2014 and August 2020. Dkt. No. 1. On May 05, 2021, defendant 18 Brown a motion to dismiss and motion to strike. Dkt. No. 15. On May 19, 2021, plaintiff filed an 19 opposition to defendant Brown’s motions. Dkt. No. 20. On May 26, 2021, Defendant Brown filed 20 replies. Dkt. No. 23. 21 On May 25, 2021, the County filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 22. On June 8, 2021, 22 plaintiff filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 30. On June 15, 2021, the County filed a reply. On July 23, 23 2021, the Court heard oral argument on all motions. 24 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if 27 it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 28 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 2 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 3 of 14 1 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard requires 2 the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 3 unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require “heightened 4 fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 5 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 6 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the 7 court must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in 8 the plaintiff's favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir.1987). However, 9 the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted 10 deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 11 (9th Cir.2008). 12 If the Court dismisses the complaint, it must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. 13 The Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no 14 request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly 15 be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) 16 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 17 DISCUSSION 18 19 I. Defendant Brown’s Motion to Dismiss2 20 Defendant Brown moves to dismiss plaintiff’s first, sixth, fourteenth, and fifteenth causes of 21 action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on First Amendment Right to Free Speech; 42 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Brown requests the Court take judicial notice of: (1) plaintiff’s tort claim for damages, received by the County of Lake on February 5, 2019; (2) County of Lake’s Notice of Rejection of plaintiff’s tort claim for damages, issued on May 31, 2019; (3) plaintiff’s complaint for damages, filed in Lake County Superior Court on October 30, 2019; and (4) plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal, filed in Lake County Superior Court on March 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 15-1. The Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s request for judicial notice. See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010) (“On a motion to dismiss, [the Court] may consider . . . matters of public record.”); Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding court documents already in the public record and filed in other courts are subject to judicial notice); Tan v. GrubHub, Inc., 171 F.Supp.3d 998, 1016 n.2 (N.D. Cal.2016) (finding exhibits filed on the public docket in state court are subject to judicial notice). 3 2 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 4 of 14 1 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection; intentional infliction of emotional 2 distress (“IIED”); and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). 3 Plaintiff’s Federal Claims 4 A. 5 The complaint alleges defendant Brown violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the First 6 Amendment Right to Free Speech and Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection. Dkt. No. 1 at 17- 7 19; 29-31. Defendant Brown argues plaintiff’s federal claims are (1) limited by the statute of 8 limitations and (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9 1. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Statute of Limitations 11 Defendant argues plaintiff’s federal claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations 12 period.3 Dkt. No. 15 at 2:9-10. Plaintiff argues plaintiff’s claims are timely under the continuing 13 violations doctrine. Dkt. No. 20 at 6-7. 14 The continuing violations doctrine allows a plaintiff to seek relief for events outside of the 15 statute of limitations period. Bird v. Dep’t of Human Services, 935 F.3d 738, 746 (9th Cir. 2019) 16 (internal citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has explained the continuing violations doctrine may 17 apply to either “a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period,” or 18 “the maintenance of a discriminatory system both before and during [the limitations] period.” Id. 19 (internal quotation omitted). However, after the Supreme Court’s decision in National R.R. 20 Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), 21 little remains of the continuing violations doctrine. Except for a limited exception for hostile work environment claims—not at issue here—the serial acts branch is virtually non-existent. Moreover, while we have left room for the systematic branch to apply to class-wide pattern-or-practice claims . . . we have consistently refused to apply the systematic branch to rescue individualized claims that are otherwise time-barred. 22 23 24 25 26 Id. at 748 (internal citation omitted). 27 28 3 The parties agree that the general statute of limitations for all claims is two years. Dkt. No. 20 at 4:15-16; Dkt. No. 23 at 4:9-10. 4 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 5 of 14 1 Plaintiff argues defendant Brown’s actions showed a pattern to force plaintiff out of a job, 2 destroy plaintiff’s legal reputation, and prevent plaintiff from raising any further reports in the 3 District Attorney’s Office. Dkt. No. 20 at 7. However, plaintiff’s reliance on separate alleged 4 violations by defendant Brown is insufficient to plead a class-wide pattern-or-practice claim. See 5 Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 579 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]ndividualized decisions are best 6 characterized as discrete acts, rather than as a pattern or practice of discrimination.”) (internal 7 citation and quotation omitted). 8 violations as independent bases for liability. See id. at 578-79 (“[A] court must determine whether 9 a claim is based on an independently wrongful, discrete act, and if it is, then the claim accrues, and 10 the statute of limitations begins to run, from the date of that discrete act, even if there was a prior, 11 related past act.”). The complaint asserts each of Defendant Brown’s alleged 12 Accordingly, the Court finds that the continuing violations doctrine does not apply to 13 plaintiff’s federal claims. The Court will evaluate the sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint relating 14 to defendant Brown based on allegations occurring after March 23, 2019.4 15 2. 16 17 18 Sufficiency of Claims Defendant Brown argues plaintiff’s federal claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), fail to plead a claim upon which relief can be granted. 19 20 a. Allegations for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment Freedom of Speech 21 22 23 In order to state a claim against a government employer for violation of the First Amendment, an employee must show (1) that he or she engaged in protected speech; (2) that the 24 25 26 27 28 Factual allegations after March 23, 2019 include: (1) “In July 2019, Plaintiff was again informed that Defendant Brown was making disparaging comments regarding Plaintiff to Deputy District Attorney Lisa Obrien”;(2) “In November 2019, Defendant Brown called Plaintiff a “piece of shit” publicly outside of the courtroom of Department 3.”; and (3) On or about January 14, 2020, Defendant Brown, in public, called Plaintiff “Bernie Flesch,” apparently referring to Plaintiff’s Jewish faith. This occurred in public to other members of the public within Plaintiff’s hearing.” Dkt. No. 1 at 36, 41, 43. 4 5 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 6 of 14 1 employer took ‘adverse employment action’; and (3) that his or her speech was a ‘substantial or 2 motivating’ factor for the adverse employment action.” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 3 973 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added). 4 Defendant Brown argues the complaint fails to plead facts supporting defendant Brown took 5 adverse employment action against plaintiff. Dkt. No. 15 at 11. Plaintiff argues defendant Brown 6 used his position and relationships as a member of the board of supervisors to retaliate against 7 plaintiff.5 Dkt. No. 20 at 16-17. 8 The Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead defendant Brown performed an 9 adverse employment action against plaintiff. The complaint neither pleads how defendant Brown, 10 a member of the County of Lake Board of Supervisors, is plaintiff’s employer nor how defendant 11 Brown’s actions constitute adverse action by an employer. See Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 12 at 974-75 (“The goal [in First Amendment retaliation cases] is to prevent, or redress, actions by a 13 government employer that ‘chill the exercise of protected’ First Amendment rights.”) (internal 14 citation omitted) (emphasis added). Indeed, plaintiff stated “Defendant Brown . . . is not plaintiff’s 15 employer”. Dkt. No. 20 at 1. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Brown’s motion to 16 dismiss with leave to amend. 17 18 b. Allegations for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection 19 Defendant argues the complaint fails to allege similarly situated employees to plaintiff were 20 treated more favorably because they were not practicing the Jewish faith. Dkt. No. 15 at 14. Plaintiff 21 argues the complaint pleads that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, based on plaintiff’s 22 Jewish faith, and defendant Brown referred to plaintiff as “Bernie Flesch,” referring to plaintiff’s 23 Jewish faith. Dkt. No. 20 at 17. 24 “To state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must show 25 that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon 26 27 28 In plaintiff’s opposition, plaintiff argues defendant Brown used his position as a “bail bondsman” to act against plaintiff. Dkt. No. 20 at 17. However, the complaint makes no reference to defendant Brown as a bail bondsman. The complaint only refers to defendant Brown in his individual capacity as a member of the Board of Supervisors. 6 5 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 7 of 14 1 membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2 2005). 3 The Court finds that plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts showing defendant Brown or the 4 County intended to discriminate against plaintiff based on plaintiff’s Jewish faith. See Vill. of 5 Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977) (“discriminatory intent or 6 purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause”). 7 Plaintiff’s State Claims 8 B. 9 Defendant Brown alleges plaintiff’s claims of IIED and NIED fail to state a claim upon 10 which relief could be granted. Dkt. No. 15 at 5-17. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 1. 12 IIED 13 Defendant argues the complaint fails to sufficiently plead conduct that is extreme or 14 outrageous. Dkt. No. 15 at 14:26-27; 16:11-21. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s conduct “was 15 ongoing, extreme and outrageous that ranges from open displays of harassment, retaliation, and 16 discrimination, that have lasted years and continue.” Dkt. No. 20 at 10:21-23. 17 To prevail on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct 18 by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, 19 emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual 20 and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.” Avina v. 21 United States, 681 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). 22 The Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead how defendants’ actions were 23 extreme and outrageous conduct. See Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 855 (9th Cir. 2007) 24 (“Outrageous conduct. . . [is] so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a 25 civilized community.”) “Liability for [IIED] does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, 26 annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (2009). 27 For this additional reason, the Court GRANTS defendant Brown’s motion to dismiss, with leave to 28 amend. 7 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 8 of 14 2. 1 Defendant argues the complaint fails to sufficiently plead defendant Brown owed a specific 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 NIED duty of care to plaintiff. Dkt. No. 23 at 3:23-24. 4 “NIED is simply a form of negligence, and NIED claims must satisfy the traditional elements 5 of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.” Averbach v. Vnescheconombank, 280 F.Supp.2d 6 945, 960 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2003). A duty may arise where it is assumed by the defendant, imposed 7 as a matter of law, or arises out of a relationship between the two. See Burgess v. Sup. Ct., 831 P.2d 8 1197 (1992). 9 The Court finds that the complaint fails to establish how defendant assumed a duty of care 10 to plaintiff. The complaint does not sufficiently plead how defendant Brown assumed a duty of care 11 over plaintiff and plaintiff fails to cite authority for the proposition that defendant owes a specific 12 duty of care as “an elected member of the Board of Supervisors and a colleague within the 13 courthouse.” See Regents of U. of California v. Sup. Ct., 413 P.3d 656, 664-66 (2018) (explaining 14 special relationships include common carriers and innkeepers with their guests; a business or 15 landowner with invited guests; a landlord with tenants; a guard with those in custody; an employer 16 with its employees and; a school with its students). For this additional reason, the Court GRANTS 17 defendant Brown’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. 18 19 II. County of Lake’s Motion to Dismiss 20 Defendant County of Lake (“the County”) moves to dismiss the complaint’s first, second, 21 third, fourth, fifth, seventh, tenth, twelfth, fourteenth, and fifteenth causes of action.6 For the reasons 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The causes of action include are (1) “Illegal Intrusion on First Amendment Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; (2) “Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell ActionBased on Official Policy, Practice, or Custom in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983”; (3) “Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Act of Final Policymaker in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983”; (4) “Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Ratification in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983”; (5) “Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Policy of Failure to Train or Supervise in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983”; (7) “Discrimination – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”; (10) “Religious Discrimination – California Fair Employment and Housing Act”; (12) “Harassment- California Fair Employment and Housing Act”; (14) “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”; and (15) “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Dkt. No. 1. 8 6 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 9 of 14 1 stated below, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss. 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 A. First and Second Causes of Action: First Amendment Right to Free Speech in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 4 The County argues plaintiff’s first cause of action fails to sufficiently plead facts to 5 demonstrate municipal liability under any Monell theory. Dkt. No. 22 at 4. Plaintiff argues the 6 complaint demonstrated a persistent and widespread custom of the County intruding on his First 7 Amendment right to free speech. Dkt. No. 30 at 9. 8 The Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead municipal liability under Monell 9 liability. The complaint states “defendants’ intentional and negligent actions and failures, including 10 . . . training and hiring practices along with failure to investigate and remedy unlawful activity as 11 alleged . . . constitute a policy, pattern, and/or custom of violations of the Civil Rights Laws of the 12 United States. . . deprived plaintiff of his . . . right to free speech” and the County “failed to take 13 steps to prevent Defendant Brown from taking these illegal actions against Mr. Flesch when it had 14 notice.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 67, 69. This language fails to identify any content of the County’s alleged 15 policy or custom resulting in plaintiff’s alleged deprivation of rights under the first amendment. See 16 Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (“[I]t is when 17 execution of a government's policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury that the government as an entity 18 is responsible under § 1983.”); Mendy v. City of Fremont, 13-cv-04180-MMC, 2014 WL 574599 at 19 *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2014) (dismissing municipal liability claim based on unsupported allegation 20 of an “informal custom or policy that tolerates and promotes the continued use of excessive force 21 and cruel and unusual punishment against and violation of civil rights of citizens by City police 22 officers in the manner alleged [elsewhere in the complaint]”). Moreover, the complaint fails to 23 plead how the County’s alleged policy or custom caused deprivation of plaintiff’s first amendment 24 rights or how the policy or custom was otherwise deficient. See Howard v. Contra Costa County, 25 13-cv-3626-NC, 2014 WL 824218 at * 14 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (dismissing claim that county 26 had policy or custom of failing to properly train employees where “the complaint does not identify 27 what the training practices were, or how they were deficient). 28 Accordingly, the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts supporting Monell liability for 9 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 10 of 14 1 plaintiff’s first and second causes of action. The Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss, 2 with leave to amend. 3 5 Third and Fourth Causes of Action: Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell Action-Based on Act of Final Policymaker in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 6 The County argues the complaint’s identification of defendant Brown as a final policymaker 4 7 8 fails to establish Monell liability. Dkt. No. 22 at 6-7. Plaintiff argues defendant Brown was involved in plaintiff’s retaliation, harassment, and discrimination. Dkt. No. 30 at 11. 9 The complaint alleges defendant Brown “had final policymaking authority as a member of the 10 Board of Supervisors for the County of Lake District Attorney’s Office from the County concerning 11 United States District Court Northern District of California B. 12 13 14 these acts herein alleged. When Defendant Brown engaged in these acts, he was acting as a final policymaker for Defendant County.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 94, 95. However, the complaint fails to identify the ratifying actions that Defendant Brown allegedly committed and whose actions Defendant Brown, as a policymaker, ratified. See Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346–47 (9th 15 Cir. 1992) (“[P]laintiff may prove that an official with final policy-making authority ratified a 16 subordinate's unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.”). Moreover, the complaint 17 fails to plead which policymaker from the County allegedly ratified defendant Brown’s conduct and 18 how the policymaker knew of and ratified defendant Brown’s conduct. See Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 19 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To show ratification, a plaintiff must show that the authorized 20 21 22 policymakers approve a subordinate's decision and the basis for it. . . A mere failure to overrule a subordinate's actions, without more, is insufficient to support a [Section] 1983 claim.”); Zuegal v. Mountain View Police Department, 17-cv-3249-BLF, 2020 WL 5076628 at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23 27, 2020) (“The policymaker must have actual knowledge of the constitutional violation and 24 affirmatively approve of it – a failure to overrule a subordinate's actions is insufficient to support a 25 § 1983 claim.”). 26 27 Fifth Cause of Action: Retaliation – Exercising Free Speech Monell ActionBased on Policy of Failure to Train or Supervise in Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 28 The County argues the complaint fails to allege facts identifying specific training, how a C. 10 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 11 of 14 1 lack of training cause plaintiff’s harm, and how training was deficient. Dkt. No. 22 at 8. Plaintiff 2 argues he alerted the County of harassment and asked the County to intervene. Dkt. No. 30 at 13. 3 The complaint alleges “Defendant Brown and employees . . . clearly lacked sufficient 4 training to prevent and cease his harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against the Plaintiff in 5 the workplace” and “[t]he training policies of Defendant County were and are not adequate to train 6 or supervise its employees to handle the usual and recurring situations with which they must deal 7 and handle.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 124, 130. The complaint adds “Defendant County showed a deliberate 8 indifference, a conscious disregard of the constitutional rights of its employees, and specifically, 9 Mr. Flesch, in failing to train Defendant Brown to obey the laws of the State of California and the United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Federal laws of the United States, including the United States Constitution.” Id. at ¶ 125. 11 The Court finds the complaint fails to identify the specific training that the County allegedly 12 failed to train defendant. Compare Mackie v. County of Santa Clara, 444 F.Supp.3d 1094, 1113 13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (finding failure to train claim sufficient where a complaint alleged specific 14 training failures “with regard to the interaction with crime victims and the perpetrators”) with 15 Martinez v. City of Santa Rosa, 499 F.Supp.3d 748, 751 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020) (finding failure 16 to train claim insufficient where plaintiff alleged defendant had generic and boilerplate “custom 17 and practice of infringing on peoples' right to assemble, to protest, and to express their political 18 beliefs on the basis of the content of the protestors' speech”). Moreover, the complaint fails to plead 19 sufficient facts demonstrating the County made a conscious or deliberate choice to risk a likely 20 violation of constitutional rights. See Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding one 21 must demonstrate a “conscious” or “deliberate” choice on the part of a municipality in order to 22 prevail on a failure to train claim”) 23 24 D. Seventh Cause of Action: Discrimination – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 25 The County argues plaintiff failed to plead and prove timely exhaustion of administrative 26 remedies with Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff argues 27 the complaint adequately pleads exhaustion of administrative remedies, but offers to “provide such 28 details in an amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 30 at 13. 11 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 12 of 14 1 The complaint does not include the dates in which plaintiff filed with DFEH. Therefore, the 2 Court finds the complaint fails to adequately plead its seventh case of action. See Kim v. Konad 3 USA Distribution, Inc., 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 686 (2014) (“[I]t is plaintiff's 4 burden to plead and prove timely exhaustion of administrative remedies, such as filing a sufficient 5 complaint with [DFEH] and obtaining a right-to-sue letter.”) (internal citation and quotation 6 omitted). 7 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 E. Tenth Cause of Action: Religious Discrimination – California Fair Employment and Housing Act 9 Defendant argues the complaint fails to allege plaintiff was treated differently because of his 10 Jewish faith. Dkt. No. 22 at 12. Plaintiff argues the complaint alleged “Defendants treated Plaintiff 11 differently from other similarly situated [persons] . . .intentionally, and there was no rational basis, 12 let alone any heighted basis of scrutiny, for the difference in treatment” and gave examples of non- 13 Jewish supervisors making anti-Semitic comments. Dkt. No. 30 at 15. 14 The Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead discrimination under the FEHA. 15 Discrimination under the FEHA “addresses only explicit changes in the terms, conditions, or 16 privileges of employment . . . the institution or corporation itself must have taken some official 17 action with respect to the employee, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, adverse job 18 assignment, significant change in compensation or benefits, or official disciplinary action.” Roby v. 19 McKesson Corp, 219 P.3d 749, 788 (2009). The complaint does not identify plaintiff’s employer 20 and does not allege the actions by defendant Brown were made on behalf of the County. See id. 21 (“[D]iscrimination refers to bias in the exercise of official actions on behalf of the employer”). For 22 this additional reason, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. 23 24 F. 25 Twelfth Cause of Action: Harassment-California Fair Employment and Housing Act 26 The County argues the complaint does not sufficiently allege conduct that is severe or pervasive 27 enough to constitute harassment. Dkt. No. 22 at 10. Without citing any case law, plaintiff argues 28 the complaint does not need to allege conduct that seriously affected his psychological well-being. 12 Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 13 of 14 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Dkt. No. 30 at 14. 2 The Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead harassment under the FEHA. 3 Harassment under the FEHA “does not involve any official exercise of delegated power on behalf 4 of the employer . . . [and] focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace 5 becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an 6 offensive message to the harassed employee.” Roby v. McKesson Corp, 219 P.3d 749, 788 (2009). 7 However, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead the alleged actions were sufficiently severe and 8 pervasive to create an abusive working environment. See McRae v. Dept. of Corrections & 9 Rehabilitation, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 313, 324 (2006) (explaining harassment under FEHA requires 10 showing of “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” that is “sufficiently severe 11 or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working 12 environment” [the law] is violated.”) (intern citation and quotations omitted). For this additional 13 reason, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. 14 15 G. Fourteenth and Fifteenth Causes of Action: IIED and NIED 16 Finally, the County argues the complaint fails to sufficiently plead severe emotional distress 17 for the IIED and NIED causes of action. Dkt. No. 18 above, the Court finds the complaint fails to sufficiently plead IIED and NIED. For this additional 19 reason, the Court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 13 22 at 14-15. For the same reasons discussed Case 3:21-cv-02018-SI Document 44 Filed 08/17/21 Page 14 of 14 CONCLUSION 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant 3 Brown and the County of Lake, GRANTS plaintiff leave to amend, and DENIES AS MOOT 4 Defendant Brown’s Motion to Strike. See Dkt. No. 24 (Defendant Brown’s Reply to Plaintiff’s 5 Opposition) at 2 (“[T]he motion is now moot on its merits.”). Plaintiff has thirty days from the date 6 of this order to submit an amended complaint. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2021 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14
]]>
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.
