Moniz v. City of Delano, California

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief; ORDER VACATING THE HEARING DATE of June 30, 2014 and DIRECTING the Parties to File Supplemental Briefing re 24 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/27/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBIN MONIZ,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
CITY OF DELANO, CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00093 - JLT
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD,
FOURTH, AND FIFTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
ORDER VACATING THE HEARING DATE OF
JUNE 30, 2014 AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendant City of Delano, California, filed a motion for summary judgment on May 19, 2014.

17

(Doc. 24.) In her opposition to the motion, Plaintiff asserted that she was “abandoning her claims

18

other than her 1st and 2nd claims for relief.” (Doc. 25 at 1.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and

19

fifth claims for relief are DISMISSED.

20

Plaintiff’s remaining claims for retaliation in violation of Title VII and California’s Fair

21

Employment and Housing Act relate to her job reassignment, which occurred in May 2010. (See Doc.

22

4 at 4; Doc. 25-10 at 1, UMF 3.) Importantly, however, it is not clear that the Court has jurisdiction

23

over Plaintiff’s first cause of action.

24

Although the City did not raise the issue in its motion for summary judgment, the Court may

25

raise the issue sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“a court may

26

raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the

27

action, even on appeal”). Recently, the Ninth Circuit determined the Court is “obligated to consider

28

sua sponte requirements that go to subject-matter jurisdiction.” Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d
1

1

1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Court has an obligation to assure

2

itself that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Title VII and FEHA.
To establish subject matter jurisdiction over a Title VII claim, a plaintiff must exhaust her

3
4

administrative remedies by filing a timely charge with the EEOC. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,

5

349 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707-708 (9th

6

Cir. 2001) (holding timely exhaustion of administrative remedies is a statutory prerequisite to filing suit

7

under Title VII, and affirming the dismissal of Title VII claims for lack of jurisdiction); B.K.B. v. Maui

8

Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002) (“to establish subject matter jurisdiction over her

9

Title VII claim, Plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative remedies”).
A plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged violation, unless

10
11

the complainant initially institutes proceedings with a state or local agency, in which case the EEOC

12

charge must be filed within 300 days. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); see also MacDonald v. Grace

13

Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2006). “A claim is time barred if it is not filed within

14

these time limits.” AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002). Here, Plaintiff alleged that she filed

15

a charge with the EEOC, but has not provided information regarding the contents of the charge, or the

16

date it was filed. (See Doc. 4 at 3, ¶ 14.) If the job reassignment occurred beyond the statutory period

17

applicable to Plaintiff’s EEOC charge, it is not actionable and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Title

18

VII claim.
Moreover, if the Court lacks jurisdiction over the only remaining cause of action arising under

19
20

federal law, it is not clear with the Court should exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for

21

retaliation in violation of FEHA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Accordingly, supplemental briefing on

22

the matter of the Court’s jurisdiction is appropriate.

23

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

24

1.

Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief are DISMISSED;

25

2.

The hearing date of June 30, 2014 is VACATED1;

26

3.

The parties SHALL file supplemental briefing no later than July 10, 2014, addressing

27
28

1

The Court will re-set a hearing on the motion if, after the supplemental briefs are filed, it appears argument may be
helpful in determining the motion.

2

1

the issues of the Court’s jurisdiction in 10 pages or less including:

2

a.

time-barred; and

3
b.

4

Whether the Court should maintain jurisdiction over the FEHA claim if it lacks
jurisdiction over the Title VII claim.

5
6

Whether Plaintiff’s first claim for relief for retaliation in violation in Title VII is

4.

Any briefs in reply SHALL be filed by the parties no later than July 17, 2014.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 27, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3