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