Borja-Valdes et al v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 29 Motion to Dismiss (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ANA BORJA-VALDES, LILLIE ELLISON,
AND MERCEDES HERNANDEZ-MONROY,

No. 3:14-cv-04168-CRB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20

The Second Amended Complaint in this matter (dkt. 28) is DISMISSED WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as follows:
•

21

Francisco (“CCSF”) violated the Civil Service Rules by failing to give Ellison

23

an opportunity to be re-hired to a 1246- or 1244-level position. Moreover, the

24

SAC fails to plead that Ellison’s 1246-level position was re-numbered under a

25

27
28

Claim One, Three, and Eight: Plaintiff Lillie Ellison’s disparate treatment
claims fail to state a plausible claim that defendant City and County of San

22

26

/

1250-level position label, such that Civil Service Rule 109.10.6 might apply.
•

Claim Two and Nine: Ellison’s disparate impact claims fail to state a plausible
claim that Ellison was personally injured within a relevant time period by any
disparate impact of CCSF policies regarding promotions to 0931- or 0932-

1

level positions. To whatever extent Ellison intended her disparate impact claim

2

to be based instead on the 1246-level rehire issue that forms the basis of her

3

disparate treatment claims, the SAC does not so state in comprehensible terms.

4

•

Claims Ten and Eleven: Plaintiff Mercedes Hernandez-Monroy’s claims for

5

“rescission” and “declaratory relief” fail to state a claim because they are styled

6

as remedies, not causes of action. Moreover, Hernandez-Monroy fails to plead

7

that CCSF breached any actual term of the Settlement Agreement, specifically

8

by unsealing the envelope containing certain records in her personnel file.

9

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

11

content that allows the court the draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

12

for the misconduct alleged.”); Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir.2000).

13

Accordingly, CCSF’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file

14

an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any amended complaint

15

must address the legal deficiencies stated herein or be subject to dismissal with prejudice.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: May 22, 2015
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2