From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrew v. Menlo Park City School District

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 15, 2010
No. C-10-0292 MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)

Opinion

No. C-10-0292 MMC.

April 15, 2010


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION; VACATING APRIL 30, 2010 HEARING


Before the Court is defendant Menlo Park City School District's motion, filed March 16, 2010, to dismiss plaintiff's Second Cause of Action. Plaintiff Andrew W. has not filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 30, 2010, and rules as follows.

Under the Local Rules of this District, plaintiff's opposition was due no later than April 9, 2010. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a) (providing "opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date").

For the reasons stated by defendant, the Court finds the Second Cause of Action, by which plaintiff alleges a claim for money damages based on a breach of contract, is subject to dismissal. Specifically, plaintiff has failed to allege that, pursuant to § 945.4 of the California Government Code, he has presented to defendant a "written claim therefor." See Cal. Gov't Code § 945.4; see also City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 738-39 (2007) (holding § 945.4 applies to "contract claims").

Accordingly, defendant's motion is hereby GRANTED, and the Second Cause of Action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Andrew v. Menlo Park City School District

United States District Court, N.D. California
Apr 15, 2010
No. C-10-0292 MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)
Case details for

Andrew v. Menlo Park City School District

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW W., Plaintiff, v. MENLO PARK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Apr 15, 2010

Citations

No. C-10-0292 MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)

Citing Cases

Donahue v. Kan. Bd. of Educ.

For the same reasons the hearing officer is not a proper party, neither are the State of Kansas defendants.…