Ramos v. Los Rios Community College District

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/17/2017 DENYING 4 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELA RAMOS, an individual,

12
13
14
15
16
17

CIV. NO. 2:17-01458 WBS KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, a public entity,
THOMAS KLOSTER dba METRO-MATH
TUTORING SERVICES, a company,
THOMAS KLOSTER, an
individual, DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO DISMISS

Defendants.

19
Plaintiff Angela Ramos brought this action against

20
21

defendants Los Rios Community College District, Metro-Math

22

Tutoring Services, Thomas Kloster, and Does 1-50 asserting

23

federal and state claims arising from alleged sexual harassment

24

she experienced by Thomas Kloster.

25

Before the court is defendant Los Rios Community College

26

District’s Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint under Rule

27

12(b)(6).

28

(Compl. (Docket No. 1.).)

(Def.’s Mot. (Docket No.4).)
In January 2016, plaintiff enrolled in Algebra 30 at
1

1

Cosumnes River College (“CDC”), a college in the Los Rios

2

Community College District (“District”).

3

Thomas Kloster (“Kloster”) worked as a professor at CDC and

4

taught Algebra 30.

5

Kloster asked plaintiff to work as a recruiter for his tutoring

6

business, Metro-Math Tutoring Services.

7

approximately April to the end of June 2016, plaintiff alleges

8

defendant attempted to kiss her, sent her inappropriate and

9

threatening text messages, and stalked her on and off campus.

(Compl. ¶ 19.)

(Compl. ¶ 9, 13.)

Around mid-January 2016,

(Compl. ¶ 20.)

From

10

(Compl. ¶¶ 22-40.)

11

harassment, she did not take her final exam in Kloster’s class,

12

her grades suffered, she was placed on academic probation, she

13

enrolled in summer classes, and she began taking classes at

14

another city college.

15

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the

(Compl. ¶¶ 34, 39, 46, 48.)

On June 13, 2017, plaintiff filed her Complaint in the

16

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County

17

of Sacramento for damages against defendants for violation of

18

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) and enumerated supplemental state

19

law claims.

20

this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

21

dismiss is the first response to the complaint.

22

On July 13, 2017, the district removed the action to
The district’s motion to

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

23

under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the allegations in the

24

pleadings as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of

25

the plaintiff.

26

overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183

27

(1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).

28

motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “only enough facts to

See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),

2

To survive a

1

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

2

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

3

Bell

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

4

to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a

5

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

6

‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and

7

conclusions,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted), and

8

“the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the

9

allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal

10
11

conclusions,”

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

Under Title IX, “[n]o person in the United States

12

shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be

13

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under

14

any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

15

assistance.”

16

of sexual harassment by a student against a teacher.

17

Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, (1992).

18

state a sexual harassment claim under Title IX, the plaintiff

19

must allege the district “(1) had actual knowledge of, and (2)

20

was deliberately indifferent to (3) harassment that was so

21

severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it (4) deprived

22

the victim of access to the educational benefits or opportunities

23

provided by the school.”

24

Colo., 186 F.3d 1238, 1246 (10th Cir. 1999).

25

20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

Title IX encompasses claims
See
To

Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver,

While the dates are unclear, plaintiff alleges she

26

reported the sexual harassment to a teacher, professor, dean, and

27

Title IX officer.

28

of the harassment “unless an official who at a minimum has

A school district does not have actual notice

3

1

authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute

2

corrective measures on the recipient's behalf has actual

3

knowledge of discrimination and fails adequately to respond.”

4

Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998).

5

Plaintiff pled sufficient facts that the district had actual

6

notice of Kloster’s conduct.

7

While the exact response and the dates of action in

8

response to learning of Kloster’s conduct are unclear, the

9

shortest amount of time the district responded to learning of the

10

harassment was eight days.

11

deliberately indifferent “only where the recipient's response to

12

the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light

13

of the known circumstances.”

14

Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 648 (1999).

15

indifference is a very high standard—a showing of mere negligence

16

will not meet it.”

17

Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

18

period of time is by its nature a question of fact, and this

19

court cannot say as a matter of law at this stage of the

20

proceedings that eight days was or was not an unreasonable period

21

of time.

22

School administrators are

Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v.
“Deliberate

Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 236 (4th
What constitutes an unreasonable

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under

23

Title IX, as well as her supplemental state law claims, must

24

therefore be DENIED.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 17, 2017

27
28
4