Hansen v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Filing
17
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint, plaintiff shall file and serve such First Amended Complaint no later than December 21, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 3, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
TODD HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. C-12-5666 MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING
COMPLAINT; AFFORDING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING
HEARING
v.
14
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.,
15
Defendant.
/
16
17
Before the Court is defendant Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, filed
18
November 12, 2012. Plaintiff Todd Hansen has filed opposition. Defendant has not filed a
19
reply. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the
20
motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ respective written
21
submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 21, 2012, and rules as
22
follows.1
23
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that from October 1, 2009 through September 15,
24
2011, he was employed by defendant as President and General Manager of defendant’s
25
Bay Area Division, and that the terms of his employment were governed by a written
26
27
28
1
The parties’ stipulation, filed November 30, 2012, to continue the hearing to
February 8, 2013, the date of the initial case management conference, is DENIED as moot.
For future reference, the parties are informed that the Court does not hold hearings on
contested motions on the same date as a case management conference.
1
agreement. (See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 12.) Plaintiff alleges that although he “did all things
2
required of him pursuant to the employment agreement” (see Compl. ¶ 5), he was
3
terminated “without notice and without cause” (see Compl. ¶ 12). According to plaintiff,
4
defendant “terminated [plaintiff] as a pretext to deny his performance bonus for 2011 . . .
5
and to deny him other valuable and substantial benefits of his employment in order to save
6
money and wrongfully inflate [defendant’s] profit at [plaintiff’s] expense. (See Compl.
7
¶ 15.) Based on said allegations, plaintiff alleges two causes of action, titled, respectively,
8
Breach of Contract and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
9
In its motion to dismiss, defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to identify any
10
provision of the employment contract, whether express or implied, that defendant is alleged
11
to have breached. The Court agrees.
12
Under California law,2 an employment contract having no specified term is presumed
13
to be “at the will of either party.” See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 335 and
14
n.8 (2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Where an employee is subject to an “at
15
will” employment agreement, “the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or
16
inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures,
17
objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment.” See id. at 350. Parties to an
18
employment agreement, however, may agree, either expressly or implicitly, to limit an
19
employer’s “termination rights.” See id. at 336-37.
20
Here, plaintiff fails to allege that, under the terms of his employment agreement,
21
defendant’s termination rights were limited in any manner. Nor does plaintiff allege that, at
22
the time of his termination, he was entitled to receive, and did not receive, any employment
23
benefit that he had earned. Cf. id. at 353 n.18 (observing “at-will employee” might
24
establish claim where termination was “mere pretext to cheat the worker out of another
25
contract benefit to which the employee was clearly entitled, such as compensation already
26
earned”). Although, as stated above, plaintiff does allege that defendant had a financial
27
28
2
The Court’s jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims is based on diversity of citizenship.
2
1
motive to terminate him, specifically, not paying to plaintiff certain benefits he had expected
2
to earn in the future (see Compl. ¶ 15), such allegation is insufficient as a matter of law to
3
state a claim where the employee is an at-will employee. See Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 350
4
(holding, where employment can be terminated at will, “employee cannot complain about a
5
deprivation of the benefits of continued employment, for the agreement never provided for
6
a continuation of its benefits in the first instance”).
7
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
CONCLUSION
8
9
10
11
For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED,
and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend.
If plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint for the purpose of curing the
12
deficiencies identified above, plaintiff shall file and serve such First Amended Complaint no
13
later than December 21, 2012. If plaintiff does not file a First Amended Complaint on or
14
before December 21, 2012, the instant action will be dismissed.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: December 3, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?