Preview
l XAVIER BECERRA Exerriptfrom Filing Fees
Attorney General of California Pursuant to Gov. Code§ 6103
2 PETERD. HALLORAN
SupervisingDeputy Attorney General
3 State Bar No. 184025 E-FILED
DAVID s. KIM 1/27/2021 12:07 PM
4 Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California
State Bar No. 324531 County of Fresno
5 1300 I Street, Suite 125 By: A. Ramos, Deputy
P.O. Box 944255
6 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-6097
7 Fax: (916) 324-5567
E-mail: Petef.Halloran@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Defendants, California Prison
Authority and California Department of Corrections
9 and Rehabilitation (improperly namedas Pleasant
Valley State Prison)
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF FRESNO
13 CENTRAL DIVISION
14
15 VERONICA CASIDA, Case No. 20CECG00849
16 Plaintiff,
17 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
18 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS
19 AUTHORITY, PLEASANT VALLEY TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED
STATE PRISON, and DOES I -XX, COMPLAINT
20 inclusive,
Date: June 30, 2021
21 Defendai1ts. Time: 3:30 p.in.
Dept: 502
22 Jttdge: The Honorable Rosemary T.
McGuire
23 Trial Date: None Set
Action Filed: March 5, 2020
24 -----~--------------'
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint(20CECG00849)
INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Veronica Casida did not name Defendant California Department of Corrections
"
.J and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") in either the caption or the body of the administrative complaint she
4 filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH''). By not doing so, Plaintiff
5 failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to CDCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff is baned from
6 bringing any claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") against CDCR.
7 Because all of Plaintiffs claims against CDCR arise under FEHA, Defendant CDCR's Motion
8 for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted as to all of Plaintiffs claims against CDCR.
9 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
10 Following the Court's granting of Defendants' demurrer with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed
11 her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), again naming California Prison Industry Authority
12 ("PIA") and CDCR, improperly sued as Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), as defendants. 1
13 Plaintiffs F AC alleged five causes of action, against both defendants: (1) Retaliation in
14 violation of Labor Code, § 1102.5; (2) Harassment under FEHA, (3) Sex discrimination under
15 FEHA, (4) Retaliation under FEHA, and (5) Failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and
16 retaliation under FEHA. Following the parties' meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff voluntarily
17 dismissed her claim under Labor Code, § 1102.5. Plain ti tr s FEHA causes of action remain.
18 As set f011h in the accompanying Declaration, Counsel for Defendants sent Plaintiffs
19 counsel a meet and confer letter on December 30, 2020 discussing the issues raised by this
20 motion. (Halloran Deel., ,r 2.) Defense counsel also attempted multiple times to meet and confer
21 by phone, but Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to those eff011s. (Id at ,r,r 3-4.) Accordingly,
22 this motion became necessary,
23 STANDARD OF REVIEW
24 A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings after an answer has been filed.
25 (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 438, subd. (f).) The motion may be made on the grounds that the courtlacks
26 1 PVSP is not a separate, independent entity. Rather, it is a prison facility operated by
CDCR. (See Rouser v. White (E.D. Cal. 2009) 630 F:Supp.2d 1165, 1172~79.) Defendant has
27 repeatedly notified Plaintiff of this. Plaintiff also pleads, in her FAC, that "CDCR in turn
operates Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP").'' {FAC, 13.) Neve11heless, Plaintiff's FAC still
28 erroneously identifies PVSP as a defendant, rather than CDCR.
2
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Plaintiffs First Amended Cbmplaint (20CECG00849)
1 subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action, or that the complaints fails to state facts
2 sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Id. at s1,.1bd.(c)(l)(B).) The motion may address the
3 entire complaint, or it may be made "as to any of the causes of action stated therein." (Id. at
4 subd. (c)(2)(A).) "A motion for judgment on the pleadings perfonns the same function as
5 a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by
6 matters that can be judicially noticed." (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998)
7 67 Cal.App.4th 995,999; see also Code Civ. Proc.,§ 438, subd. (d) ["The grounds for motion
8 provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter
9 of which the court is required to take judicial notice."].)
10 LAW AND ARGUMENT
11 I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST HER ADJVJINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AS TO CDCR
BECAUSE SHE DID NOT NAME DEFENDANT CDCR IN HER DFEH COMPLAINT.
12
13 "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resmt to the
14 courts." (Johnson v.City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 [quotation marks and citation
15 omitted, emphasis removed].) A plaintiff bringing suit under FEHA must first exhaust her
16 statutory administrative remedies by filing a timely and sufficient administrative complaint with
17 DFEH and receiving a right-to-sue notice. (Gov. Code,§§ 12960, l 2965, subd. (b).) An
18 administrative complaint is sufficient as to a particular defendant only if the defendant was named
19 either in the caption or body of the charge. (Cole v.Antelope Valley Union High School Dist.
20 (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1515.)
21 The caption of Plaintiffs October 26, 2018 DFEH complaint identifies PIA as
22 a respondent, but not CDCR. (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A.) The body of the
23 complaint similady identifies a PIA employee as an alleged decision-maker, but makes no
24 1rtention of CDCR. (id) Plaintiff is thus baned from bringing a FEHA action against CDCR.
25 (See Alexander v. Cmty. Hosp. of Long Beach (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 238, 251 ["Here, plaintiffs
26 mentioned MPHS nowhere in their FEHA complaint, which constitutes a failure to exhaust their
27 administrative remedies against MPHS and precludes their bringing a civil FEHA action against
28 it."].)
3
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgmerit on the Pleadings as to
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849)
Nor can Plaintiff contend that her identification of PIA in her DFEH complaint suffices to
2 maintain suit against CDCR under an alter ego theory. The Fourth District observed that there
3 were few cases that "previously dealt with the right to sue a party who was not expressly named
4 in the FEHA complaint[.]" (Medix Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court (2002)
5 97 Cal.App.4th 109, 116 [finding four such cases, as of March 2002].) "None of these cases held
6 that a [FEHAJ case may proceed against one not mentioned in the administrative complaint. Nor
7 is there any authority for plaintiffs unsupported argument that the doctrine of alter ego somehow
8 obviates compliance with the statutory requirements." (Id.) Moreover, no post-lvfedix California
9 court has recognized an alter ego exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement that the
10 aggrieved party must name the defendant in either the caption or body of the administrative
11 complaint.
12 This conclusion is supported by the plain language of the statute. Under FEHA, an
13 individual "claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice" may file with [DFEH]
14 a verified complaint in writing which shall state the name and address of the person, employer,
I5 labor organization or employment agency alleged to have committed the w1lawful practice
16 complained of .... " (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d) [emphasis added].) "The aggrieved person
17 must exhaust this administrative remedy before bringing a civil action." (Alexander, siqJra,
18 46 Cal.App.5th at 251 [citation omitted].) This is because the statutory language is mandatory,
19 not permissive. (Cole,supra,47Cal.App.4that 1511-12.)
20 Because Plaintiff failed to identify CDCR in either the caption or body of her DFEH
21 complaint, she did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to CDCR. She is therefore
22 precluded from pursuing her PEHA claims as to CDCR.
23 Ill
24 Ill
25 Ill
26 II/
27 Ill
28 Ill
4
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. as to
Plait1tifts First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849)
CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant CDCR respectfully requests that the Court grant its
3 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, without leave to amend.
4 Dated: January 27, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
5 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
6
7
8
PETER D. HALLORAN
9 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DAVIDS. KIM
10 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants, California
11 Prison Authority and California
Department of Corrections and
12 Rehabilitation (improperly named as
Pleasant Valley State Prison)
13
SA2020 IO 1294
14 MPAs MJOP.docx
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant' s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Case Name: Veronica Casida v. CalPIA, et al.
No .: 20CECG00849
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of c01Tespondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, co1Tespondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On January 27, 2021 , I served the attached MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by
transmitting a true copy via electronic mail. In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in
a sealed envelope, in the internal mail system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as
follows:
Andrew B. Jones
Andrew B. Jones PC
1111 E. Herndon Ave. , Suite 109
Fresno, CA 93 720
E-mail Address:
ajones@wagnerjones.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
of America the foregoing
January 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California.
Marianne Baschiera
~
~
!
is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on
~~~
!'
11
~ : "-
Declarant Signature
SA2020101294
34767888. docx
Preview
l XAVIER BECERRA Exerriptfrom Filing Fees Attorney General of California Pursuant to Gov. Code§ 6103 2 PETERD. HALLORAN SupervisingDeputy Attorney General 3 State Bar No. 184025 E-FILED DAVID s. KIM 1/27/2021 12:07 PM 4 Deputy Attorney General Superior Court of California State Bar No. 324531 County of Fresno 5 1300 I Street, Suite 125 By: A. Ramos, Deputy P.O. Box 944255 6 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-6097 7 Fax: (916) 324-5567 E-mail: Petef.Halloran@doj.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants, California Prison Authority and California Department of Corrections 9 and Rehabilitation (improperly namedas Pleasant Valley State Prison) 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF FRESNO 13 CENTRAL DIVISION 14 15 VERONICA CASIDA, Case No. 20CECG00849 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 18 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS 19 AUTHORITY, PLEASANT VALLEY TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED STATE PRISON, and DOES I -XX, COMPLAINT 20 inclusive, Date: June 30, 2021 21 Defendai1ts. Time: 3:30 p.in. Dept: 502 22 Jttdge: The Honorable Rosemary T. McGuire 23 Trial Date: None Set Action Filed: March 5, 2020 24 -----~--------------' 25 26 27 28 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint(20CECG00849) INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff Veronica Casida did not name Defendant California Department of Corrections " .J and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") in either the caption or the body of the administrative complaint she 4 filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH''). By not doing so, Plaintiff 5 failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to CDCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff is baned from 6 bringing any claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") against CDCR. 7 Because all of Plaintiffs claims against CDCR arise under FEHA, Defendant CDCR's Motion 8 for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted as to all of Plaintiffs claims against CDCR. 9 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 10 Following the Court's granting of Defendants' demurrer with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed 11 her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), again naming California Prison Industry Authority 12 ("PIA") and CDCR, improperly sued as Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), as defendants. 1 13 Plaintiffs F AC alleged five causes of action, against both defendants: (1) Retaliation in 14 violation of Labor Code, § 1102.5; (2) Harassment under FEHA, (3) Sex discrimination under 15 FEHA, (4) Retaliation under FEHA, and (5) Failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and 16 retaliation under FEHA. Following the parties' meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff voluntarily 17 dismissed her claim under Labor Code, § 1102.5. Plain ti tr s FEHA causes of action remain. 18 As set f011h in the accompanying Declaration, Counsel for Defendants sent Plaintiffs 19 counsel a meet and confer letter on December 30, 2020 discussing the issues raised by this 20 motion. (Halloran Deel., ,r 2.) Defense counsel also attempted multiple times to meet and confer 21 by phone, but Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to those eff011s. (Id at ,r,r 3-4.) Accordingly, 22 this motion became necessary, 23 STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings after an answer has been filed. 25 (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 438, subd. (f).) The motion may be made on the grounds that the courtlacks 26 1 PVSP is not a separate, independent entity. Rather, it is a prison facility operated by CDCR. (See Rouser v. White (E.D. Cal. 2009) 630 F:Supp.2d 1165, 1172~79.) Defendant has 27 repeatedly notified Plaintiff of this. Plaintiff also pleads, in her FAC, that "CDCR in turn operates Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP").'' {FAC, 13.) Neve11heless, Plaintiff's FAC still 28 erroneously identifies PVSP as a defendant, rather than CDCR. 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs First Amended Cbmplaint (20CECG00849) 1 subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action, or that the complaints fails to state facts 2 sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Id. at s1,.1bd.(c)(l)(B).) The motion may address the 3 entire complaint, or it may be made "as to any of the causes of action stated therein." (Id. at 4 subd. (c)(2)(A).) "A motion for judgment on the pleadings perfonns the same function as 5 a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by 6 matters that can be judicially noticed." (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 7 67 Cal.App.4th 995,999; see also Code Civ. Proc.,§ 438, subd. (d) ["The grounds for motion 8 provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter 9 of which the court is required to take judicial notice."].) 10 LAW AND ARGUMENT 11 I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO EXHAUST HER ADJVJINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AS TO CDCR BECAUSE SHE DID NOT NAME DEFENDANT CDCR IN HER DFEH COMPLAINT. 12 13 "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resmt to the 14 courts." (Johnson v.City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 70 [quotation marks and citation 15 omitted, emphasis removed].) A plaintiff bringing suit under FEHA must first exhaust her 16 statutory administrative remedies by filing a timely and sufficient administrative complaint with 17 DFEH and receiving a right-to-sue notice. (Gov. Code,§§ 12960, l 2965, subd. (b).) An 18 administrative complaint is sufficient as to a particular defendant only if the defendant was named 19 either in the caption or body of the charge. (Cole v.Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. 20 (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1515.) 21 The caption of Plaintiffs October 26, 2018 DFEH complaint identifies PIA as 22 a respondent, but not CDCR. (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit A.) The body of the 23 complaint similady identifies a PIA employee as an alleged decision-maker, but makes no 24 1rtention of CDCR. (id) Plaintiff is thus baned from bringing a FEHA action against CDCR. 25 (See Alexander v. Cmty. Hosp. of Long Beach (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 238, 251 ["Here, plaintiffs 26 mentioned MPHS nowhere in their FEHA complaint, which constitutes a failure to exhaust their 27 administrative remedies against MPHS and precludes their bringing a civil FEHA action against 28 it."].) 3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgmerit on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849) Nor can Plaintiff contend that her identification of PIA in her DFEH complaint suffices to 2 maintain suit against CDCR under an alter ego theory. The Fourth District observed that there 3 were few cases that "previously dealt with the right to sue a party who was not expressly named 4 in the FEHA complaint[.]" (Medix Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 5 97 Cal.App.4th 109, 116 [finding four such cases, as of March 2002].) "None of these cases held 6 that a [FEHAJ case may proceed against one not mentioned in the administrative complaint. Nor 7 is there any authority for plaintiffs unsupported argument that the doctrine of alter ego somehow 8 obviates compliance with the statutory requirements." (Id.) Moreover, no post-lvfedix California 9 court has recognized an alter ego exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement that the 10 aggrieved party must name the defendant in either the caption or body of the administrative 11 complaint. 12 This conclusion is supported by the plain language of the statute. Under FEHA, an 13 individual "claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice" may file with [DFEH] 14 a verified complaint in writing which shall state the name and address of the person, employer, I5 labor organization or employment agency alleged to have committed the w1lawful practice 16 complained of .... " (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d) [emphasis added].) "The aggrieved person 17 must exhaust this administrative remedy before bringing a civil action." (Alexander, siqJra, 18 46 Cal.App.5th at 251 [citation omitted].) This is because the statutory language is mandatory, 19 not permissive. (Cole,supra,47Cal.App.4that 1511-12.) 20 Because Plaintiff failed to identify CDCR in either the caption or body of her DFEH 21 complaint, she did not exhaust her administrative remedies as to CDCR. She is therefore 22 precluded from pursuing her PEHA claims as to CDCR. 23 Ill 24 Ill 25 Ill 26 II/ 27 Ill 28 Ill 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. as to Plait1tifts First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849) CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant CDCR respectfully requests that the Court grant its 3 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, without leave to amend. 4 Dated: January 27, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 5 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 6 7 8 PETER D. HALLORAN 9 Supervising Deputy Attorney General DAVIDS. KIM 10 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants, California 11 Prison Authority and California Department of Corrections and 12 Rehabilitation (improperly named as Pleasant Valley State Prison) 13 SA2020 IO 1294 14 MPAs MJOP.docx 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Defendant' s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (20CECG00849) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Case Name: Veronica Casida v. CalPIA, et al. No .: 20CECG00849 I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of c01Tespondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, co1Tespondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On January 27, 2021 , I served the attached MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by transmitting a true copy via electronic mail. In addition, I placed a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, in the internal mail system of the Office of the Attorney General, addressed as follows: Andrew B. Jones Andrew B. Jones PC 1111 E. Herndon Ave. , Suite 109 Fresno, CA 93 720 E-mail Address: ajones@wagnerjones.com Attorneys for Plaintiff I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America the foregoing January 27, 2021, at Sacramento, California. Marianne Baschiera ~ ~ ! is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on ~~~ !' 11 ~ : "- Declarant Signature SA2020101294 34767888. docx