Jordan v. The Presidio Trust et al
Filing
94
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 79 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PATRICIA JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
v.
THE PRESIDIO TRUST, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 79
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-02122-KAW
12
13
Plaintiff Patricia Jordan brings the instant action against Defendants Presidio Trust, the
14
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Jean S. Fraser, and Jenny
15
R. Yang. (Second Amended Compl. ("SAC"), Dkt. No. 78.) Plaintiff alleges that she was
16
terminated from her position with the Presidio Trust based on her age and gender, and brings a
17
single cause of action under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). (SAC ¶¶ 1, 5.)
18
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
19
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Defs.' Mot., Dkt. No. 79.)
20
Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the relevant legal authority, and the
21
arguments advanced by counsel at the November 2, 2017 hearing, the Court GRANTS
22
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
23
I.
BACKGROUND
24
A.
25
The Presidio Trust ("Trust") was established as a wholly-owned government corporation to
Factual Background
26
manage the Presidio, located in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Presidio Trust Act,
27
Pub. L. No. 104-333 (1996) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 460bb appendix (2001)). The
28
Presidio Trust Act exempts the Trust from certain federal laws and regulations. E.g., Presidio
1
Trust Act § 104(b) (exempting the Trust from procurement requirements). At issue in this suit is §
2
103(c)(7), which states:
3
4
5
6
(7) Staff.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Trust is
authorized to appointment and fix the compensation and duties and
terminate the services of an executive director and such other
officers and employees as it deems necessary without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, or other laws related to the
appointment, compensation or termination of Federal employees.
7
In 2004, Deputy Attorney General Noel J. Francisco issued an opinion concluding that the
8
Trust was exempt from section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and section 15 of the Age
9
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), to the extent these statutes applied to appointment,
compensation, duties, or termination of Trust employees. Applicability of Anti-Discrimination
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Statutes to the Presidio Trust, 28 Op. Att'y Gen. 84, 84-85 (2004). In 2006, the Trust issued the
12
"Presidio Trust Procedures Related to Claims of Workplace Discrimination," which created a
13
"framework for adjudicating complaints of discrimination where issues arise." (SAC, Exh. 2 at 1.)
14
The Presidio Trust Procedures required that claims of discrimination or retaliation that related to
15
the appointment, compensation, or termination of employees be processed in accordance with the
16
Presidio Trust Procedures, and could not be raised to the EEOC. (Id. at 2.)
17
Plaintiff worked at the Presidio's Office of the Executive Director from December 2, 2013
18
to August 2, 2014. (SAC ¶¶ 32-34.) During her employment Plaintiff had a medical condition
19
affecting her uterus. (SAC ¶ 35.) In May 2014, Plaintiff had a medical problem requiring
20
treatment, requiring her to go to her direct supervisor, Joshua Steinberger. (SAC 37-7, 39.) After
21
Plaintiff explained her problem, Steinberger responded, "It is what it is" in a cold and impersonal
22
tone. (SAC ¶¶ 39-2, 39-4-39-5.) Although Steinberger had previously been friendly to Plaintiff,
23
following the meeting "he looked at Jordan like she had some type of terrible disease" and "never
24
smiled at her anymore." (SAC ¶¶ 39-9-39-12.) Steinberger excluded Plaintiff from a
25
departmental quarterly retreat, despite having invited her before. (SAC ¶¶ 40-1-40-3.) Plaintiff
26
also alleges that when a co-worker asked Steinberger about his weekend, he walked over to where
27
Plaintiff was sitting and talked about how he had "cleaned out his underwear drawer" and bought
28
new underwear, and "how great it felt wearing clean underwear." (SAC ¶¶ 41-2-41-5.) He then
2
1
looked at Plaintiff and winked; Plaintiff "felt the clear implication was she was wearing dirty,
2
soiled underwear due to her problem," and that he was trying to demean her in front of the group.
3
(SAC ¶¶ 41-6-41-8.) Plaintiff then went to the restroom and cried, humiliated. (SAC ¶ 41-10.)
4
On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff was informed by Steinberger and Human Resources Director
5
Bart Ferrell that it was her last day of employment. (SAC ¶ 42-5.) Plaintiff was shocked, but
6
when she asked why, Ferrell told her that no reason had to be given because she was an at-will
7
employment. (SAC ¶¶ 42-6-42-8.) Ferrell gave her a document which stated that the reason for
8
termination was due to "lack of funds." (SAC ¶¶ 42-12-42-14.) On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff
9
noticed that the Presidio had re-advertised her prior position. (SAC ¶¶ 44-1, 44-5.)
Plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and Housing. (SAC ¶¶ 46-1-46-2.) Both agencies informed her that her claim was outside their
12
jurisdiction because she was a federal employee. (SAC ¶¶ 46-4-46-5.) Plaintiff was advised to
13
visit the Presidio Trust's EEO Counselor. (SAC ¶ 46-6.) When Plaintiff contacted the Presidio,
14
they were initially unable to provide the name and contact information of the EEOC Counselor.
15
(SAC ¶ 50.) The Presidio later identified Keena Ashley as the EEOC counselor. (SAC ¶ 51.) On
16
June 5, 2015, Plaintiff completed the intake questionnaire with Ashley, and was given the right to
17
file a formal complaint. (SAC ¶¶ 52-53.) Plaintiff filed her formal complaint on July 10, 2015,
18
and Ashley confirmed receipt on July 16, 2015. (SAC ¶¶ 54, 54-2.)
19
On August 11, 2015, Ashley again confirmed receipt of Plaintiff's complaint, and
20
provided the Presidio Trust Procedures. (SAC ¶¶ 45-6, 54-3.) Plaintiff alleges that this was the
21
first time she was made aware of the Presidio Trust Procedures, as these procedures are not
22
available online and were never provided to her when she was hired, during her employment, or
23
when she was terminated. (SAC ¶¶ 45-4-45-11.)
24
B.
25
On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant suit, seeking declaratory relief on whether her
Procedural History
26
discrimination claims are subject to the Presidio Trust Procedures, or whether her claims enjoy
27
rights under Title VII, the ADEA, and EEOC regulations. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On September
28
30, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On January 30,
3
1
2017, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff had: (1) failed to
2
identify an express waiver of sovereign immunity applicable to her claim, (2) failed to establish
3
subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) failed to demonstrate that she suffered actual injury. (Dkt. No.
4
49 at 7-9.) The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint adding APA claims. (Id.
5
at 11.)
6
On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint, asserting two causes of
7
action for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. (First Amended Compl. ("FAC"), Dkt. No. 51.)
8
Defendants again filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 63.) On July 5, 2017, the Court granted
9
Defendants' motion to dismiss, explaining that declaratory relief and injunctive relief "are not
independent causes of action, but remedies." (Dkt. No. 74 at 1 (internal quotation omitted).) The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Court noted that in her opposition, Plaintiff suggested that she was actually bringing an APA
12
claim, but explained that Plaintiff's complaint did not actually include an APA cause of action.
13
(Id. at 2.) Thus, if Plaintiff intended to bring an APA claim, "she must explicitly plead such a
14
claim in her amended complaint." (Id.) The Court further found that "[t]he APA claim should, at
15
the very least, specifically identify the exact agency actions being challenged, whether it is the
16
promulgation of the Presidio Trust Procedures . . . , the alleged 'interagency agreement' between
17
the Defendants, or some other alleged final action." (Id.) The Court also observed that if Plaintiff
18
was to bring an APA claim, there was a question of whether the agency discretion exception
19
applied. (Id.)
20
On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint, asserting a single cause
21
of action under the APA. (SAC ¶¶ 65-79.) On August 25, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to
22
dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On September
23
25, 2017, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Plf.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No.
24
85.) On October 11, 2017, Defendants filed their reply. (Defs.' Reply, Dkt. No. 88.)
25
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
26
A.
27
A defendant may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
28
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion tests whether a complaint
4
1
alleges grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject
2
matter jurisdiction will be granted if the complaint on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to
3
establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036,
4
1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court "is not restricted to the
5
face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve
6
factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction." McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d
7
558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
8
under Rule 12(b)(1), the opposing party bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction.
9
See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
B.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to dismiss based
12
on the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule
13
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250
14
F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
15
In considering such a motion, a court must "accept as true all of the factual allegations
16
contained in the complaint," Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citation
17
omitted), and may dismiss the case or a claim "only where there is no cognizable legal theory" or
18
there is an absence of "sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief."
19
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
20
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Navarro, 250 F.3d at 732) (internal quotation
21
marks omitted).
22
A claim is plausible on its face when a plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the
23
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
24
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). In other words, the facts alleged must demonstrate
25
"more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
26
will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
27
28
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action" and "conclusory statements" are
inadequate. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
5
1
Cir. 1996) ("[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat
2
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a
3
probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
4
unlawfully . . . When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's
5
liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief."
6
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal citations omitted).
7
Generally, if the court grants a motion to dismiss, it should grant leave to amend even if no
8
request to amend is made "unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by
9
the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations
10
omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants raise three grounds for dismissal in this case. First, Defendants argue that the
13
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not identified an injury in fact, and
14
therefore failed to establish standing. (Defs.' Mot. at 11.) Second, Defendants assert that Plaintiff
15
fails to adequately state an APA claim because she does not identify a final agency action. (Id. at
16
16.) Further, Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the challenged action is
17
not subject to the agency discretion exception. (Id. at 17.) Finally, Defendants argue that on the
18
merits, a plain reading of the Presidio Trust Act does not support Plaintiff's interpretation of what
19
is required. (Id. at 17-18.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege an
20
APA claim, and therefore does not address the standing and merits questions.
21
A.
22
As an initial matter, Plaintiff's complaint fails to provide fair notice as to what specific
Pleading Deficiencies
23
final agency action she is challenging. Instead, Plaintiff's APA cause of action simply integrates
24
all prior paragraphs, and states generally that "Defendants have each taken the above-described
25
actions" and that those "above-described actions are in contravention of the laws and regulations
26
of the United States," without specifying which actions are the subject of the APA claim. (SAC ¶¶
27
68-69.) The prior paragraphs, in turn, focus on two potential actions: Deputy Attorney General
28
Francisco's opinion regarding the interagency dispute between the EEOC and the Trust, as well as
6
1
the Trust's issuance of the Presidio Trust Procedures. (SAC ¶¶ 5-11.) It is only in her opposition
2
that Plaintiff makes clear that she is challenging the issuance of the Presidio Trust Procedures.
3
(Plf.'s Opp'n at 2 (stating that the case is "a collateral challenge to the Presidio's ultra vires
4
assertion of rule-making authority to issue final and binding regulations that, inter alia, prohibit
5
access to EEOC regulations").) A plain reading of the complaint, however, strongly suggests that
6
Plaintiff is actually challenging the Francisco opinion, not the issuance of the Presidio Trust
7
Procedures, based on Plaintiff's allegation that she was harmed by the opinion, that "[t]his case
8
directly challenges Francisco's conclusions that now bind the EEOC from asserting jurisdiction
9
over most all [sic] termination claims against the Trust," that "Francisco's directive ignores our
civil rights statutes and regulations, violates clear rules governing statutory construction . . . , and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
that it otherwise runs counter to our national values, and that "Francisco's directive cannot be
12
sustained." (SAC ¶¶ 5, 9, 10.) It is only with the opposition's clarification that the basis of
13
Plaintiff's APA claim becomes clear. The complaint's lack of clarity fails to comply with federal
14
pleading standards requiring "fair notice of what the claim is and the ground upon which it rests,"
15
as it forces Defendants to guess as to which action is the subject of the APA claim. Erickson v.
16
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).1 Dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint is warranted on this ground
17
alone.
18
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is challenging only the issuance of the Presidio Trust
19
Procedures, Plaintiff fails to allege any cause of action against Defendants EEOC and Yang. (See
20
Defs.' Reply at 2 n.4.) Plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that either Defendant is responsible
21
for the promulgation of the Presidio Trust Procedures. Instead, at the hearing, Plaintiff argued that
22
the Defendants had an "apparent inter-agency agreement," evidenced by the instant lawsuit, as
23
Defendants were being represented by the same counsel and relying on the same briefing. In other
24
words, Plaintiff appeared to assert that this case could be brought against Defendants EEOC and
25
Yang based on actions taken by Defendants EEOC and Yang in defending the same suit. Plaintiff
26
27
28
1
The failure to specifically identify the exact agency action being challenged also contravenes the
Court's order dismissing Plaintiff's first amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 74 at 2.)
7
1
points to no authority suggesting that conduct occurring during a lawsuit could form the basis of
2
liability in that same lawsuit. Moreover, even if Plaintiff was correct that Defendants EEOC's and
3
Yang's conduct in this suit evidence support for the Presidio Trust Procedures, this still does not
4
demonstrate that Defendants EEOC and Yang had any involvement in the issuance of the Presidio
5
Trust Procedures. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's APA claim against these two
6
Defendants.
7
B.
8
Even assuming that Plaintiff's APA claim provides adequate notice, the Court finds that the
Lack of APA Claim
APA claim fails.2 In general, the APA allows a plaintiff "'adversely affected or aggrieved by
10
agency action to obtain judicial review thereof, so long as the decision challenged represents a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." Webster v. Doe, 486
12
U.S. 592, 599 (1988) (internal quotations omitted). When reviewing agency action under the
13
APA, the court "will reverse the agency action only if the action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
14
of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law." Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th
15
Cir. 2004) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); footnote omitted).
In determining whether an APA claim may be brought, the Court "begin[s] with the strong
16
17
presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action." Bowen v. Mich.
18
Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986). Not all agency actions, however, are
19
subject to judicial review; the APA "limits application of the entire APA to situations in which
20
judicial review is not precluded by the statute, see § 701(a)(1), and the agency action is not
21
committed to agency discretion by law, see § 701(a)(2)." Webster, 486 U.S. at 599. The latter
22
agency discretion exception "applies in those rare instances where statutes are drawn in such broad
23
terms that in a given case there is no law to apply." Id. Thus, "even when Congress has not
24
affirmatively precluded judicial oversight, review is not to be had if the statute is drawn so that a
25
court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of
26
2
27
28
Although an "argument in opposition cannot cure a defect in the pleading," the Court finds it
more efficient to consider the propriety of Plaintiff's APA claim challenging the issuance of the
Presidio Trust Procedures, rather than require another round of pleading. Yamauchi v. Cotterman,
84 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
8
1
2
3
discretion." Id. at 599-600.
i.
Promulgation of the Presidio Trust Procedures
First, Plaintiff appears to challenge whether Defendant Presidio Trust had any authority to
4
issue the Presidio Trust Procedures, regardless of their content. Plaintiff does not explain why
5
Defendant Presidio Trust lacks any authority to issue procedures, and such an assertion is contrary
6
to the clear terms of the Presidio Trust Act. Again, Section 103(c)(7) specifically gives Defendant
7
Presidio Trust authority to appoint, fix the compensation and duties of, and terminate the services
8
of employees. Moreover, Section 103(c)(8) gives the Trust "all necessary and proper powers for
9
the exercise of the authorities vested in it," which presumably would include the ability to issue
rules and procedures such as the Presidio Trust Procedures. In any case, the Court is not required
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
to presume that Section 103(c)(8) gives Defendant Presidio Trust the ability to issue rules because
12
Section 104(j) specifically permits Defendant Presidio Trust to "adopt, amend, repeal, and enforce
13
bylaws, rules and regulations governing the manner in which its business may be conducted and
14
the powers vested in it may be exercised . . . ." This is a clear grant of authority to issue the
15
Presidio Trust Procedures, and Plaintiff points to no authority that suggests otherwise.
16
To the extent Plaintiff relies on Newman v. Rosenblatt, this case is unpersuasive. As an
17
initial matter, Newman is not binding on the Court. Moreover, Newman did not find that
18
Defendant Presidio Trust lacked authority to issue its own policies and procedures for its
19
employees. Instead, Newman concluded that Defendant Presidio Trust was subject to certain laws,
20
such as the ADEA and Title VII. EEOC DOC 01A24736, 2003 WL 1624696, at *4 (Mar. 18,
21
2003). This is a distinct finding from whether Defendant Presidio Trust could issue policies and
22
procedures, which, as discussed above, the Presidio Trust Act clearly permits Defendant Presidio
23
Trust to do. The Court therefore finds that to the extent Plaintiff challenges Defendant Presidio
24
Trust's ability to issue rules and regulations such as the Presidio Trust Procedures, Plaintiff has
25
failed to state a claim.
26
27
28
ii.
Content of the Presidio Trust Procedures
Second, Plaintiff appears to challenge the content of the Presidio Trust Procedures, namely
the conclusion that employee claims of discrimination are not subject to the EEOC process, but
9
1
are instead subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Defendant Presidio Trust. (See Plf.'s Opp'n at
2
3.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's challenge to the substance of the Presidio Trust Procedures is
3
precluded by the APA's agency discretion exception.
4
In Webster, the Supreme Court examined § 102(c) of the National Security Act ("NSA"),
5
which stated in relevant part: "Notwithstanding . . . the provisions of any other law, the Director of
6
Central Intelligence may, in his discretion, terminate the employment of any officer or employee
7
of the Agency whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of
8
the United States . . . ." National Security Act of 1947 ("NSA"), ch. 343, § 102(c), 61 Stat. 495,
9
498. The Supreme Court found that:
10
§ 102(c) allows termination of an Agency employee whenever the
Director "shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the
interests of the United States" (emphasis added), not simply when
the dismissal is necessary or advisable to those interests. This
standard fairly exudes deference to the Director, and appears to us to
foreclose the application of any meaningful judicial standard of
review. Short of permitting cross-examination of the Director
concerning his views of the Nation's security and whether the
discharged employee was inimical to those interests, we see no basis
on which a reviewing court could properly assess an Agency
termination decision.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
Webster, 486 U.S. at 600. The Supreme Court also found that the overall structure of the NSA
17
strongly suggested that implementation of § 102(c) was committed to agency discretion by law,
18
explaining that the NSA generally expressed an overriding need for ensuring integrity in the
19
Agency. Id. at 601. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that "the language and structure of §
20
102(c) indicate that Congress meant to commit individual employee charges to the Director's
21
discretion, and that § 701(a)(2) accordingly precludes judicial review of these decisions under the
22
APA." Id.
23
In Conyers v. Rossides, the Second Circuit concluded that the agency discretion exception
24
applied to § 111(d) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act ("ATSA"). 558 F.3d 137, 149
25
(2d Cir. 2009). There, the relevant provision stated:
26
27
28
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the [Administrator]
may employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the
compensation, terms, and conditions of employment of Federal
service for such a number of individuals as the [Administrator]
determines to be necessary to carry out the screening functions
10
1
[required by the Act]. The [Administrator] shall establish levels of
compensation and other benefits for individuals so employed.
2
49 U.S.C. § 44935. First, the Second Circuit found that "the phrase '[n]otwithstanding any other
3
provision of law' is one that clearly signals the drafter's intent that the provisions of the
4
'notwithstanding' section override conflicting provisions of any other section." Conyers, 558 F.3d
5
at 145 (internal quotation omitted). Second, the court found that § 111(d) "speaks broadly of the
6
Administrator's authority to 'employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation,
7
terms, and conditions of employment . . . ." Id. "This nearly comprehensive list of employment-
8
related decisions, along with Section 111(d)'s final sentence regarding the Administrator's
9
establishment of 'levels of compensation and other benefits,'" all concerned actions related to
personnel management. Id. at 145-46. The Second Circuit thus found that this language "clearly
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
signals Congress's intent to grant the [Administrator] authority to design a personnel management
12
system for airport security screeners, to include or not include at the [Administrator's] discretion
13
provisions of other federal personnel laws . . . ." Id. at 146. Finally, the Second Circuit found that
14
its conclusion regarding agency discretion was confirmed by legislative history, as an amendment
15
to the initial language "significantly broadened the reach of the provision to authorize the
16
employment, suspension, and termination of airport passenger security screeners without regard to
17
the provisions of title 5, United States Code, otherwise applicable to such employees." Id. at 147
18
(internal quotation omitted).
19
Like the statutes in Webster and Conyers, the language of § 103(c)(7) of the Trust Act
20
strongly suggests that Congress intended to give the Trust broad discretion in personnel decisions.
21
Like § 102(c) of the NSA, § 103(c)(7) authorizes the Trust to appoint and fix compensation and
22
duties, and terminate services "as it deems necessary" without regard to federal laws related to the
23
appointment, compensation, or termination of Federal employees. The "deems necessary"
24
language was significant to the Supreme Court, as it does not create a specific standard or create a
25
particular requirement, but instead leaves the issue to the discretion of the decision-maker, in this
26
case--the Trust. Compare with Webster, 486 U.S. at 600. Section 103(c)(7) also covers a broad
27
scope, leaving a wide variety of employment decisions -- appointment, compensation, duties, and
28
termination -- to the decision-maker, while using "Notwithstanding any other provision of law"
11
1
language to override conflicting provisions of law. See Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 729 F.3d
2
967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) ("As a general matter, 'notwithstanding' clauses nullify conflicting
3
provisions of law"). The lack of standards and the wide scope of this section clearly indicate that
4
this section's implementation is "committed to agency discretion by law."
The statutory history also suggests a commitment to agency discretion. Section 103(c)(7)
5
6
was amended to include the "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" language, as well as
7
expanding its scope to include termination. (Defs.' Mot., Exh. B at 5.) The amendments also
8
included the removal of narrowing language as to what laws the Trust could act without regard to,
9
eliminating specifically identified provisions and instead stating more generally "or other laws
related to the appointment, compensation or termination of Federal employees." (Id.) This
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
broadening of the scope of § 103(c)(7) confirms the Court's interpretation of the language to be
12
committing such decisions to agency discretion. Compare with Conyers, 558 F.3d at 147. Thus,
13
the Court concludes that the promulgation of the Presidio Trust Procedures is an act that falls
14
within the discretion of the Trust, precluding judicial review under the APA.
Notably, Plaintiff provides no significant response to the applicability of the agency
15
16
discretion exception, even though the issue was identified by the Court in its order dismissing the
17
first amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 74 at 2.) Instead, Plaintiff appears to rely on Neighbors of
18
Cuddy Mountain v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002). (Plf.'s Opp'n at 3.) The section of
19
Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain that Plaintiff cites to, however, did not address the agency
20
discretion exception; instead, it was concerned with what qualified as a final agency decision.3
21
303 F.3d at 1067 (explaining that the court will only intervene in the administration of laws when
22
3
23
24
25
26
27
Indeed, Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain did not address the agency discretion exception at all. To
the extent Neighbors discussed discretion, it was in the context of the National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA"), a procedural statute that does not mandate particular results but requires
certain processes to ensure that an agency exercises its discretion in a manner that is "truly
informed." 303 F.3d at 1071. The agency discretion referenced in NEPA is distinct from the
agency discretion exception in the APA.
Likewise, Plaintiff's citations to Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 316 U.S. 407
(1942) and Hale v. Norton, 437 F.3d (9th Cir. 2006), are irrelevant to the agency discretion
exception because neither case addressed discretion in any form.
28
12
1
"a specific 'final agency action' has an actual or immediately threatened effect. Such an
2
intervention may ultimately have the effect of requiring a regulation, a series of regulations, or
3
even a whole 'program' to be revised by the agency in order to avoid the unlawful result that the
4
court discerns"). Plaintiff provides no explanation for how this section of Neighbors of Cuddy
5
Mountain is relevant to the instant case, and does not analyze the language or legislative history of
6
§ 103(c)(7) to explain why the agency discretion exception would not apply. At the hearing,
7
Plaintiff again relied heavily on Newman; as discussed above, however, Newman is not binding on
8
the Court. Moreover, Newman requires the Court to consider the content of the Presidio Trust
9
Procedures; the Court cannot get to this issue, however, if the agency discretion exception applies.
In short, Plaintiff's reliance on Newman does not affect the Court's finding that the substance of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the Presidio Trust Procedures is committed to the discretion of Defendant Presidio Trust.
12
Because the agency discretion exception applies to preclude judicial review under the
13
APA, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss. Further, because judicial review is
14
precluded, further amendment would be futile. The dismissal is therefore with prejudice.4
15
IV.
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss the
16
17
complaint with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
CONCLUSION
Dated: November 15, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
4
25
26
27
28
This suit is limited to a challenge of the administrative procedures by which Plaintiff can seek
relief from the agency, i.e., whether Defendant Presidio Trust can promulgate the procedures that
it has. This does not address the merits of Plaintiff's discrimination claim, which is whether she
was unlawfully terminated based on her age and/or gender. Plaintiff may not be precluded from
bringing a suit based on what she alleges happened to her, or from completing the process
prescribed by the Presidio Trust Procedures and challenging those results should the decision be
unfavorable. Such a suit would also appear to better address the standing issues that Defendants
assert exists in this suit.
13
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?