Bagnall v. CSU Maritime

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 | Eric James Bagnall, No. 2:23-cv-01606-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 California State University Maritime, et al., 1S Defendants. [16] 17 Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 18 | Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 51. The matter is fully briefed, and the court held a hearing on 19 | July 12, 2024. See generally Opp’n, ECF No. 53; Reply, ECF No. 54; Mins., ECF No. 59. 20 In response to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court begins by assuming the complaint’s 21 | factual allegations are true, but not its legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678-79 22 | (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court then determines 23 | whether those factual allegations “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” under Rule 8. /d. 24 | at 679. 25 For plaintiff to succeed on his state law claims (Counts I-VI), he must show compliance 26 | with the Government Claims Act, including the presentation-of-claims requirement. Gen. Sec. 27 | Servs. Corp. v. Cnty. of Fresno, 815 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2011). The Third 28 | Amended Complaint does not allege compliance, and plaintiff concedes he did not comply. See 1 Opp’n at 11. For that reason, Counts I through VI do not “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to 2 relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 . 3 Plaintiff’s remaining Title IX Claim, Count VII, also falls short. To state a Title IX claim, 4 plaintiffs must allege background indicia of sex discrimination in combination with specific 5 information about their cases. See Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 23 F.4th 930, 936 (9th Cir. 6 2022) (citing Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 967 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 2020)). Plaintiff 7 concedes he did not allege and is “as of yet unaware” of any background indicia of sex 8 discrimination. See Opp’n at 6. Accordingly, Count VII does not state a claim. See Schwake, [9] 967 F.3d 940 ; Doe v. Oregon State Univ., 614 F. Supp. 3d 847 , 857 (D. Or. 2022). 10 At hearing, plaintiff’s counsel, who had only recently taken primary responsibility for this 11 matter, requested time to determine whether plaintiff could further amend the complaint; defense 12 counsel contended any amendment would be an exercise in futility. See Mins., ECF No. 59. The 13 court instructed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report on whether the parties 14 requested further argument, an opportunity to file supplemental briefing, or further scheduling. [15] Id. The parties filed their joint status report, which stated plaintiff expected to retain new counsel, 16 who would contend on his behalf that amendment would not be futile. See Joint Status Rep. 17 (July 26, 2024), ECF No. 60. New counsel then appeared for plaintiff, and the parties filed a 18 supplemental joint status report. See Min. Order, ECF No. 68; Suppl. Joint Status Rep., ECF 19 No. 67. Plaintiff’s counsel believes an amendment would not be futile; defendants’ counsel 20 disagrees. The parties state they are willing to appear for further argument or submit 21 supplemental briefing. 22 Having considered the parties’ joint reports, plaintiff is granted leave to file, within 23 fourteen days, a supplemental brief of no more than five pages to address whether leave to 24 amend should be denied based on futility of amendment. Within fourteen days of receiving 25 service of plaintiff’s supplemental brief, defendants may file a supplemental brief of the same 26 length in response, after which the court will take the matter under submission without hearing 27 additional oral argument. The motion at ECF No. 51 remains pending. 28 ///// 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | DATED: October 29, 2024. [4] 7 ATES DISTRICT JUDGE