Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System et al
Filing
36
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 16 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 26 Motion to Supplement Opposition; and finding as moot 33 Application to Expedite Case-Management Conf erence. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.The plaintiff must file any amended complaint within 21 days from the date of this order. If she does not, then the dismissal will be without prejudice to filing a lawsuit in state court. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
San Francisco Division
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,
12
Case No. 16-cv-07414-LB
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
v.
14
ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
15
Re: ECF Nos. 16 and 19
Defendants.
16
17
The plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, the Alameda Health System, for
18
19
retaliatory discharge and against the Department of Industrial Relations, which is the agency
20
charged with investigating retaliation complaints that fall within its jurisdiction. (See Compl. –
21
ECF No. 1.)1 She also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis — which the undersigned
22
granted. (ECF No. 4.) Both defendants moved to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter
23
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Motions – ECF Nos. 16, 19.) Ms. Drevaleva does not
24
state plausible federal claims, and the court thus dismisses her complaint for lack of federal
25
subject-matter jurisdiction.
26
27
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
1
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07414-LB
GOVERNING LAW
1
2
Original jurisdiction may be based on diversity or a federal question. See Caterpillar Inc. v.
3
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). For diversity jurisdiction, the opposing parties must be
4
citizens of different states and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 1332(a). There will be federal-question jurisdiction if the case ―aris[es] under the Constitution,
6
laws, or treaties of the United States.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
7
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss a case for lack of federal
8
subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the ground for
9
the court‘s jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Farmers
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Ins. Exchange v. Portage La Prairie Mut. Ins. Co., 907 F.2d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 1990).
12
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon
13
which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include a ―short and plain
14
statement‖ showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. ―To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
15
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
16
its face.‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (internal quotation omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v.
17
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint need not contain ―detailed factual allegations,‖
18
but the plaintiff must ―provide the ‗grounds‘ of his ‗entitle[ment]‘ to relief,‖ which ―requires more
19
than labels and conclusions‖; a mere ―formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action‖ is
20
insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
21
In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily
22
limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980
23
(9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable
24
inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
25
Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that ―the [plaintiff]
26
can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.‖ Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State
27
Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). ―Nor is the court required to accept as true
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07414-LB
2
1
allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
2
inferences.‖ Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
If a court dismisses a complaint, it should give leave to amend unless the ―the pleading could
4
not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.‖ Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal.
5
Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).
6
7
1. The court does not have federal subject-matter jurisdiction
8
As to Ms. Drevaleva‘s claims against her former employer Alameda Health, she mentions
9
wage-and-hours violations and other labor complaints, her discharge for negligence (surrounding
the care of a patient who died), and her complaints about both, but her claim for relief is based
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
only on her allegedly retaliatory discharge in violation of California law. (Compl. at 2–7.) This
12
also was the basis of her appeal to the Department of Industrial Relations. She does not state a
13
federal claim against her employer.
14
Ms. Drevaleva‘s claims against the Department of Industrial Relations derive from its
15
investigation of her allegedly wrongful discharge. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence
16
of retaliation; she disagrees with that determination. (Compl. at 8.) She alleges no claims against it
17
specifically; her conclusory allegations of an insufficient investigation do not establish a federal
18
claim.
19
20
2. Ms. Drevaleva does not plausibly state a claim
21
―While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
22
factual allegations, a plaintiff‘s obligation to provide the ‗grounds‘ of his ‗entitle[ment] to relief‘
23
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
24
action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
25
speculative level.‖ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and parentheticals omitted). Ms.
26
Drevaleva fails to allege ―sufficient factual matter,‖ which, ―accepted as true, . . . state[s] a claim
27
to relief that is plausible on its face.‖ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
28
―[A] complaint must give fair notice‖ of the alleged wrong ―and state the elements of the claim
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07414-LB
3
1
plainly and succinctly.‖ Pickard v. WMC Mortgage Corp., 2009 WL 3416134, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct.
2
21, 2009) (citing Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984)).
3
Ms. Drevaleva does not state a plausible claim against the Department of Industrial Relations.
4
Disagreeing with an agency‘s conclusion does not state a claim. Her allegations against the agency
5
do not establish any failure to investigate. (And while the court does not consider them, the
6
agency‘s submissions suggest just the opposite and a plausible context for the offer to withdraw
7
her complaint to avoid a negative decision. (See Motion – ECF No. 16 at 10–11.)) Her claims are
8
more plausibly alleged against her employer, but, as discussed in the previous section, those are
9
state claims.
Also, the agency is immune from suit. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state, or citizens
12
or subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985).
13
Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state agency. See Brown v. Cal.
14
Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections and
15
California Board of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Allison v.
16
Cal. Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and San Quentin
17
State Prison not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act). Liability arises only upon a showing
18
of personal participation by an individual defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
19
1989).
20
Ms. Drevaleva similarly does not state a plausible federal claim for discharge against her
21
former employer based on its alleged violations of the California Labor Code or for its conclusion
22
that she was negligent. She did not plead any claims regarding wage-and-hours violations,
23
including a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (―FLSA‖). That claim in any event
24
generally is subject to a two- or three-year statute of limitations. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Any FLSA
25
was apparent by the date of her discharge in September 2013; she did not file her federal
26
complaint until December 2016. And while her pursuit of claims through the agency process might
27
toll her state claims (though the parties do not discuss this), they do not obviously toll any federal
28
FLSA claim.
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07414-LB
4
1
In sum, Ms. Drevaleva does not plausibly plead any federal claim. Nevertheless, given the
2
legal standards, the court is reluctant to conclude now that amending the complaint would be
3
futile. The court will accordingly dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.
4
* * *
5
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The plaintiff must
7
file any amended complaint within 21 days from the date of this order. If she does not, then the
8
dismissal will be without prejudice to filing a lawsuit in state court. The court observes that the
9
claims are state claims and that state court appears to be the appropriate forum for Ms. Drevaleva‘s
dispute. The court again refers Ms. Drevaleva to the resources available to persons who represent
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
themselves. (See ECF No. 30, which is the Notice of Resources, the Handbook, and the flyer for
12
the court‘s help desk.)
13
The court denies Ms. Drevaleva‘s motion to supplement her opposition as unnecessary. (See
14
ECF No. 26.) The court considered the relevant Eleventh Amendment authorities, including Ms.
15
Drevaleva‘s ability to assert claims against individual defendants. The court also denies as moot
16
Ms. Drevaleva‘s request at ECF No. 33.
17
This disposes of ECF Nos. 16, 19, 26, and 33.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: March 21, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07414-LB
5
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?