Golden v. State Military Department National Guard, State of California, et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/01/16 ORDERING that the 22 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with 21 days LEAVE TO AMEND. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHELLE GOLDEN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-00507-KJM-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT,
NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
Having reviewed the allegations of the complaint and the parties’ briefing, the

19
20

court orders as follows:1
The complaint includes one claim, for wrongful death, asserted against all of the

21
22

defendants. To state a claim for wrongful death, plaintiff must allege (1) the defendants were

23

negligent or did some other wrongful act, (2) this negligence or wrongful act caused the death,

24

and (3) she suffered a pecuniary loss as a result. Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal. App. 4th

25

1256, 1263 (2006).

26
1

27
28

In an effort to streamline resolution of motions to dismiss in cases where the parties have
counsel, when the court is granting leave to amend it is adopting a shortened form of order
consistent with the order issued here.
1

1

A surviving heir may bring a wrongful death claim after a suicide. Tate v.

2

Canonica, 180 Cal. App. 2d 898, 909 (1960). First, a plaintiff may succeed by alleging that the

3

“defendant intended, by his conduct, to cause serious mental distress or serious physical

4

suffering” and that the defendant’s conduct in fact caused this distress or suffering, which was “a

5

substantial factor in bringing about the suicide.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted);

6

accord, e.g., Nally v. Grace Cmty. Church, 47 Cal. 3d 278, 301 (1988). Second, a defendant may

7

also be liable if he or she negligently causes a person to suffer from a mental illness, leading to

8

“an uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide.” Tate, 180 Cal. App. 2d at 915; accord, e.g.,

9

Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist., 997 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

10

Ms. Golden’s factual allegations are too shallow to support her case. They do not

11

allow a reasonable inference that the defendants’ wrongful acts were outrageous and a substantial

12

factor in bringing about the suicide, let alone that the defendants meant to cause Mr. Golden

13

serious emotional distress or serious physical suffering. She alleges generally that the defendants

14

“harassed” Mr. Golden, demoted him, deprived him of responsibilities, and made false claims

15

against him in retaliation for his disclosures. Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1-1. Neither is it plausible

16

on these allegations that the defendants caused Mr. Golden to suffer from a mental illness. She

17

alleges his post-traumatic stress disorder predated his employment. Id. ¶ 2. Finally, she does not

18

specify which defendants were responsible for which wrongful conduct, a critical omission in

19

light of the fact that three defendants originally named in this case have since been voluntarily

20

dismissed. The court cannot draw a reasonable inference that the remaining defendants are liable.

21

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

22

The complaint is therefore dismissed with leave to amend. See Chudacoff v. Univ.

23

Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Leave to amend . . . should be freely

24

given” absent “bad faith, undue delay, futility, or undue prejudice to the opposing party.”

25

(citations, alterations, and quotation marks omitted)); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4

26

Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen a viable case may be pled, a district

27

court should freely grant leave to amend.”).

28
2

1

Here, a viable claim can likely be presented because “public entities are generally

2

liable for injuries caused by the negligence of their employees acting in the scope of their

3

employment.” Hayes v. Cty. of San Diego, 57 Cal. 4th 622, 629 (2013) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code

4

§ 815.2). And an individual public employee is liable “for injury caused by his act or omission to

5

the same extent as a private person.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 820(a). The court also cannot find at this

6

early stage that the individual defendants owed and breached no duty of care. See Mem. P. & A.

7

at 17–18.

8

The defendants ask the court to limit any amendment to claims not founded on

9

statutes cited in Ms. Golden’s complaint. Although the court recognizes the generalized, legal

10

nature of the defendants’ arguments, it declines to impose this limitation without a more complete

11

understanding of Ms. Golden’s theory of the case and adequate factual allegations. She and her

12

counsel are nonetheless reminded of their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)

13

and are instructed to consider the citations offered in the defendants’ current briefing. The parties

14

are also referred to the provisions of this court’s standing order regarding efforts to meet and

15

confer in advance of any motion. See Standing Order at 4, ECF No. 3-1.

16
17
18
19

The motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend. An amended complaint
shall be filed, if at all, within twenty-one days of the date this order is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2016.

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3