Sangyimphan v. Tsai et al

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING 7 MOTION TO DISMISS by Hon. Richard Seeborg. Any amended complaint must be filed by 8/23/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

OAMPAI SANGYIMPHAN,

Case No. 17-cv-02152-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

12
13

SHERRY TSAI, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17

I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Sherry Tsai and Mark Draheim move to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff

18

Oampai Sangyimphan, who advances a variety of claims pertaining to her employment for, and

19

termination by, Tsai and Draheim. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for

20

disposition without oral argument. Because Sangyimphan’s claims are barred by the applicable

21

statutes of limitations, defendants’ motion is granted and Sangyimphan’s complaint is dismissed.

22
23

II. BACKGROUND
Sangyimphan claims to have worked for Tsai and Draheim as a nanny and housekeeper

24

from February 2010 until her firing on January 21, 2013. According to Sangyimphan, she was an

25

employee in good standing for over two and a half years, even receiving promotions and raises,

26

but was ultimately fired on account of age, disability, race, and sex.

27
28

On April 18, 2017, she initiated this action. Although her complaint is somewhat unclear
with respect to what claims it advances, it will be construed liberally because Sangyimphan is a

1

pro se litigant. Viewed through this lens, it appears to include claims for: wrongful termination,

2

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress in

3

violation of California common law; race and disability discrimination in violation of California’s

4

Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900, et seq.; age discrimination in

5

violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et

6

seq.; sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1);

7

disability discrimination in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

8

U.S.C. §§ 12111, et seq.; and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

9

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

10

On July 5, 2017, defendants filed this motion to dismiss, arguing Sangyimphan’s lawsuit

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

cannot proceed because her claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the

12

doctrine of res judicata. Defendants support their res judicata argument by reference to various

13

court documents and orders and indicating Sangyimphan has already unsuccessfully litigated

14

employment-related claims against them in California state court, and is therefore barred from

15

advancing this action. These documents are susceptible to judicial notice, see Fed. R. Evid. 201,

16

and such notice will be taken.

17
18

III. LEGAL STANDARD
“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the

19

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[D]etailed

20

factual allegations” are not required, but a complaint must provide sufficient factual allegations to

21

“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

22

(quoting Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

23

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

24

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides a mechanism to test the legal sufficiency

26

of the averments in a complaint. Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint “fail[s] to state a

27

claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint in whole or in
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 17-cv-02152-RS

28
2

1

part is subject to dismissal if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or the complaint does not include

2

sufficient facts to support a plausible claim under a cognizable legal theory. Navarro v. Block,

3

250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). When evaluating a complaint, the court must accept all its

4

material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

5

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

6

granted, leave to amend should be granted unless “the complaint could not be saved by any

7

amendment.” Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal

8

quotation marks omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION

9

Defendants persuasively argue all of Sangyimphan’s claims are barred by the applicable

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

statutes of limitations. Those limitations periods are: two years for a wrongful termination claim,

12

Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., 242 Cal. App. 4th 1367, 1382 (2015); one year for race and

13

disability discrimination claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act,

14

id.; two years for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, Miller v. Bank

15

of Am., Nat. Ass’n, 858 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1127 (S.D. Cal. 2012); 180 days for ADEA claims,

16

Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d));1 three years

17

for Equal Pay Act claims, Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing

18

29 U.S.C. § 255(a))2; and 180 days for claims under Title I of the ADA, Alberti v. City & Cty. of

19

San Francisco Sheriff’s Dep’t, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 1998),3 disagreed with on

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

29 U.S.C. § 633a(d) provides: “When [an aggrieved] individual has not filed a complaint
concerning age discrimination with the [Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission, no civil
action may be commenced by any individual under this section until the individual has given the
Commission not less than thirty days’ notice of an intent to file such action. Such notice shall be
filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.” There is
no indication Sangyimphan filed a timely (or, for that matter, untimely) complaint with the
Commission.
1

29 U.S.C. § 255(a) provides a general two-year limitations period, but a three-year period for “a
cause of action arising out of a willful violation.” Sangyimphan’s complaint will be construed as
alleging a willful violation of the equal pay act.
2

Specifically, “parties claiming a violation of Title I must file an administrative complaint with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . . . within one hundred eighty days of the
3

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 17-cv-02152-RS

28
3

1

other grounds by Zimmerman v. Oregon Dep’t of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 1999).

2

At the latest, Sangyimphan’s claims accrued on the alleged date of her firing, January 21,

3

2013. She initiated this action over four years later, on April 18, 2017 — well beyond any of the

4

statutes of limitations governing her claims. As such, her claims are subject to dismissal, and it is

5

not necessary to determine if her earlier litigation against defendants bars this action according to

6

the doctrine of res judicata.
V. CONCLUSION

8

Tsai and Draheim’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Sangyimphan’s complaint is

9

dismissed. Provided she can do so in good faith, Sangyimphan may file an amended complaint in

10

order to plead facts indicating this action is not barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Any

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

such amended complaint must be filed by Wednesday, August 23, 2017. If no amended complaint

12

is filed, the case will be dismissed with prejudice without further notice.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: August 2, 2017
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

occurrence of the alleged discrimination as a prerequisite to a civil suit.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12117; 2000e-5(b), (e)(1)).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. 17-cv-02152-RS

28
4