Whitsitt v. County of San Mateo

Filing 35

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
LAURA V WHITSITT,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

No. C 10-04996 LB
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

[ECF No. 31]

16

On November 7, 2011, Defendant County of San Mateo filed a motion for judgment on the

17

pleadings as to Plaintiff Laura Whitsitt’s second claim, which alleged wrongful termination in

18

violation of public policy cause. ECF No. 31 at 1.1 Defendant argues that, pursuant to section 815

19

of the California Government Code, public entities are immune from common law claims. Id. at 2.

20

Defendant further asserts that wrongful termination in violation of public policy cause of action is a

21

common law, judicially created tort. Id. (citing Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167,

22

176-178 (Cal. 1980)). Defendant concludes that it is statutorily immune from Plaintiff’s second

23

claim. Id. Plaintiff concedes that a governmental entity is not liable for a suit based on a common

24

law cause of action and, accordingly, does not object to the court striking its second cause of action.

25

Opposition, ECF No. 34 at 1.

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
C 10-4996 LB

1

After considering the case history, moving papers, and law, the court determines that this matter

2

is appropriate for resolution without oral argument. N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-1(b). The court VACATES

3

the hearing and GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion because it, as a public entity, is statutorily

4

immune from common law torts such as Plaintiff’s second claim, which asserts wrongful

5

termination in violation of public policy cause. See Miklosy v. Regents of University of California,

6

44 Cal.4th 876, 899-900 (Cal. 2008).

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
C 10-4996 LB

2