Opinion
2:23-cv-01606-KJM-CKD
10-29-2024
Eric James Bagnall, Plaintiff, v. California State University Maritime, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 51. The matter is fully briefed, and the court held a hearing on July 12, 2024. See generally Opp'n, ECF No. 53; Reply, ECF No. 54; Mins., ECF No. 59.
In response to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court begins by assuming the complaint's factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court then determines whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” under Rule 8. Id. at 679.
For plaintiff to succeed on his state law claims (Counts I-VI), he must show compliance with the Government Claims Act, including the presentation-of-claims requirement. Gen. Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Cnty. of Fresno, 815 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2011). The Third Amended Complaint does not allege compliance, and plaintiff concedes he did not comply. See Opp'n at 11. For that reason, Counts I through VI do not “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Plaintiff's remaining Title IX Claim, Count VII, also falls short. To state a Title IX claim, plaintiffs must allege background indicia of sex discrimination in combination with specific information about their cases. See Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 23 F.4th 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 967 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 2020)). Plaintiff concedes he did not allege and is “as of yet unaware” of any background indicia of sex discrimination. See Opp'n at 6. Accordingly, Count VII does not state a claim. See Schwake, 967 F.3d 940; Doe v. Oregon State Univ., 614 F.Supp.3d 847, 857 (D. Or. 2022).
At hearing, plaintiff's counsel, who had only recently taken primary responsibility for this matter, requested time to determine whether plaintiff could further amend the complaint; defense counsel contended any amendment would be an exercise in futility. See Mins., ECF No. 59. The court instructed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report on whether the parties requested further argument, an opportunity to file supplemental briefing, or further scheduling. Id. The parties filed their joint status report, which stated plaintiff expected to retain new counsel, who would contend on his behalf that amendment would not be futile. See Joint Status Rep. (July 26, 2024), ECF No. 60. New counsel then appeared for plaintiff, and the parties filed a supplemental joint status report. See Min. Order, ECF No. 68; Suppl. Joint Status Rep., ECF No. 67. Plaintiff's counsel believes an amendment would not be futile; defendants' counsel disagrees. The parties state they are willing to appear for further argument or submit supplemental briefing.
Having considered the parties' joint reports, plaintiff is granted leave to file, within fourteen days, a supplemental brief of no more than five pages to address whether leave to amend should be denied based on futility of amendment. Within fourteen days of receiving service of plaintiff's supplemental brief, defendants may file a supplemental brief of the same length in response, after which the court will take the matter under submission without hearing additional oral argument. The motion at ECF No. 51 remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED.