Opinion
22-cv-02221-JD
09-26-2023
THE UNITY CARE GROUP, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
ORDER RE DISMISSAL
JAMES DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 35, is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and the hearing set for October 5, 2023, is vacated.
Plaintiff Unity Care Group's First Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice. The second amended complaint (SAC) again does not state a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981 “because it does not plausibly allege that the County discriminated against Unity Care pursuant to an official policy, custom or practice.” Dkt. No. 25 at 4. The SAC is materially identical to the prior complaint in all relevant respects, and plaintiff did not add any new factual allegations suggesting that the County engaged in a policy or practice of discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts with African Americans. Dkt. No. 35 at 20-22.
Plaintiff refers the Court to “Sections 11(d)-(G)” of its opposition brief, Dkt. No. 37 at 16, but no such allegations can be found there, and in any event, a brief is not a substitute for a complaint that satisfies FRCP 8. With respect to the non-mutuality of the nondiscrimination clause in the contract, plaintiff acknowledges that County policy requires the same provision in all County contracts, and so this language cannot amount to discrimination. See Dkt. No. 34 ¶¶ 101103. The general allegations of disparate treatment of African Americans in Santa Clara County as a community also do not amount to discriminatory policies or practices by the government.
Plaintiff has now had multiple opportunities to allege a plausible claim. “The fact that plaintiff failed to correct the deficiencies the Court previously pointed out ‘is a strong indication that the plaintiffs have no additional facts to plead.'” In re InvenSense, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 15-CV-00084-JD, 2017 WL 11673462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017) (quoting Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009)). Consequently, further leave to amend is denied, and the First Claim for Relief, which was the sole federal claim in the SAC, is dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of plaintiff's state causes of action in the absence of a plausible federal claim, and so the case will be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.