Novak v. Anaconda School District et al
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 5 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, filed by Tom Darnell, Anaconda School District, 11 Findings and Recommendations,. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 6/21/2011. (CRM, ) Modified on 6/21/2011 CpyCSO(CRM, ).
:-1 J::)
"
; , I
'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
"
.
BUTTE DIVISION
SARA NOVAK,
~.~,
)
-! ~",:
,:(v
u, - - - - - - -
------ ...• -.-
D~FUT"( Ci_E!~~<
CV-I0-62-BU-RFC
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
)
ANACONDA SCHOOL
)
DISTRICT, SCHOOL DISTRICT )
)
NO. 10, DEER LODGE
COUNTY, and TOM DARNELL, )
individually and as Superintendent)
of Anaconda School District,
)
)
Defendants.
)
---------------------)
On May 5, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered
Findings and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends this Court
grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss.
Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party
has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.c, § 636(b )(1). In this matter, no
party filed objections to the May 5,2010 Findings and Recommendation. Failure
to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation waives all
1
objections to the findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.
1999). However, failure to object does not relieve this Court of its burden to
review de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions oflaw. Barilla v. Ervin, 886
F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989).
After an extensive review ofthe record and applicable law, this Court finds
Magistrate Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation are well grounded in law
and fact and adopts them in their entirety.
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter juri~,diction to hear
Plaintiff's due process claims because she failed to exhaust non-judicial remedies.
The jurisdictional issue is intertwined with the merits of this case. Where the
question ofjurisdiction is intertwined with the merits, the court must consider the
allegations in the complaint as true, unless controverted by undisputed facts in the
record, and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff Center
jar Biological Diversify v. Salazar, 2010 WL 4055568 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing
Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987». In Roberts, the
Ninth Circuit stated that if a district court cannot determine jurisdiction on the
basis of a threshold inquiry analogous to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may
assume jurisdiction and go on to determine the relevant jurisdictional facts on
2
either a motion going to the merits or at trial. Roberts, 812 F .2d at 1178. The
motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction is denied.
B.
Failure to State a Claim - Rule 12(b)(6)
1.
Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim
Plaintiff is alleging that her due process rights were violated when
Defendants improperly terminated her employment pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. §
20-4-206, instead of Mont. Code Ann. § 20-4-204.
The Fourteenth Amendment forbids any State from depriving persons of
"life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.
But the United States Constitution does not itself create property interests. Doyle
v. City ofMedford, 606 F.3d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 2010). Rather, "they are created
and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem
from an independent source such as state law-rules or understandings that secure
certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits." Id.
"[P]ublic employees who can be discharged only for cause have a
constitutionally protected property interest in their tenure and cannot be fired
without due process." Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 928-29 (1997). In order to
establish a deprivation of due process, an employee "needs an individual
entitlement grounded in state law, which carmot be removed except for cause ..."
Weisbch v. County ofLos Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 780 (9th Cir. 1997).
3
The Complaint states a claim, plausible on its face, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff alleges that she was a tenured teacher "upon her acceptance as a
Driver's Education Instructor in 2009 (her fourth consecutive contract)." Court
Doc. 1 at 3-4,
~
9. Plaintiff also specifically alleges Defendants violated her right
to due process under the United States Constitution. Court Doc, 1 at 4,
2.
~
10.
PlaiotifPs Breach of Contract & Breach ofthe Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claims
Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to identifY a specific contract that
Defendants breached. Based upon the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff has
stated a plausible claim for breach of contract and for breaches of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In Montana, "[a] civil action arises out of:
(1) an obligation; [and] (2) an injury." Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-105. "An
obligation is a legal duty by which one person is bound to do or not to do a certain
thing and arises from ... a contract[.)" Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1 ..105(1). Plaintiff
has alleged the existence of a contract giving rise to certain obligations on the part
ofDefendants. She has alleged that Defendants breached their obligations, and
that she was damaged as a result.
4
3.
Plaintiffs Prayer for Punitive Damages
a.
§1983 Claim
A municipal entity is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.s.C §
1983. City ofNewport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 268-71 (1981). Suits
against state officials in their official capacity should be treated as suits against the
state. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21,25 (1991). Punitive damages are permitted,
however, against a municipal official in his individual capacity if the official's
conduct is shown to be "motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves
reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights (If others." Smith
v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983). Punitive damages are also available when a
defendant engages in oppressive conduct by either misusing authority or
exploiting a plaintiffs weakness. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800,809-11 (9th Cir.
2005). Novak has alleged her weaker bargaining position was ex:ploited in
connection with her improper termination. A sufficient claim has been made for
punitive damages against Darnell in his individual capacity.
b.
State Law Claims
Pursuant to the clear language of Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9..105, Anaconda
School District is immune from punitive damages claimed in connection with
violations of state law. But Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-105 does net apply te
5
defendant Darnell individually. Plaintiffs prayer for punitive dmnages must be
dismissed with respect to Anaconda School District.
4.
Plaintiffs Fraud Claim
Fraud must be plead with particularity. F.R.Civ.P.9(b). Magistrate Judge
Carolyn Ostby found that the fraud claim in the Complaint was not plead with
sufficient particularity and recommended dismissal and that Plaintiff be given
leave to amend to re-allege her fraud claim within 14 days. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on May 18,2011. This issue is moot.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss [doc. 5] is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs prayer for punitive
damages against Anaconda School District, School District No. 10, and Deer
Lodge County. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. The
Clerk of Court shall
DATED
not~Fies of the making of this Order.
th'#!-
day oflune, 2011.
6
~
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?