250-251 D Mjop (2)

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Document 250

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 1 of 2

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasserlalmarkwasser.com Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: [email protected]

9 10

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan and Irwin Harris

11 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 15

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff,

16 17 18 19

vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Defendants.

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Date: January 12,2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Courtroom 3 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA

20 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: March 24, 2009

21 22 23

TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

24

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 12,2009 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as

25

the matter can be heard in the courtroom of the above-referenced Court at 2500 Tulare Street,

26

Fresno, California, Defendants will, and hereby do, move the Court for judgment on the

27

pleadings.

28 -1-

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG I

Document 250

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 2 of 2

The motion will be made on the grounds that the claim Plaintiff filed with the County

2

does not satisfy the requirements of California law and, consequently, Plaintiffs complaint must

3

be dismissed.

4 5 6

The motion will be based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities filed herewith and on such other materials as may be hereafter submitted to the Court. Respectfully submitted,

7

8

Dated: November 13,2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

9

10

11

By: lsi Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25

26 27

28 -2DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Document 251

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 1 of 5

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, California 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: [email protected]

9

10

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan and Irwin Harris

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 15

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

16 17 18 19 20 21

Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et a!.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Date: January 12,2009 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Courtroom 3 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: March 24, 2009

22 23

Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for judgment on the

24

pleadings and ask the Court to grant the motion and enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

25

STATEMENT OF FACTS

26

On July 3, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a claim to the County in an apparent attempt to

27

satisfy the claims filing requirements of California Government Code §§900 et seq. A copy of

28 -1DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

I

Document 251

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 2 of 5

Plaintiffs claim is attached to the Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit 2.

2

The claim purports to recite the factual bases of Plaintiffs claims. The explanation of the

3

facts is divided under headings that identify the several theories Plaintiff intended to pursue. The

4

first heading is "breach of contract." The second heading is "wrongful demotion/termination in

5

violation of California Business and Professions Code §2056 and conspiracy relating thereto."

6

The third heading is "libel per se/ratification by KMC." The final heading is labeled "related

7

causes of action" and describes claims of "intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent

8

hiring, negligent supervision and negligent retention."

9

The text of the claim contains a description of "date, place and other circumstances of the

10

accident or event(s) giving rise to the claim." To paraphrase what Plaintiff wrote, under the

II

"breach of contract" heading, Plaintiff alleged that Peter Bryan "failed to comply with the KMC

12

bylaws in stripping [Plaintiff] of chairmanship." See, Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit 2.

13

Under the heading "wrongful termination" etc., Plaintiff alleged that removing Plaintiff

14

from his chairmanship "constituted a wrongful termination" and was "retaliation by Mr. Bryan

15

against [Plaintiff] for raising concerns relating to patient health care." Id.

16

Under the heading "per se libel" etc., Plaintiff wrote that other physicians at KMC had

17

written letters expressing "dissatisfaction" with Plaintiff and that another physician had

18

"maliciously defamed [Plaintiff s] professional competence." Id.

19 20 21 22

Under the heading "related causes of action" Plaintiff wrote that he intended to bring several other claims. Plaintiff concluded his claim by writing that he claimed pro rata loss of compensation, attorneys fees, "loss of reputation," and "severe emotional distress."

23

The County reviewed and considered Plaintiffs claim and denied it.

24

Plaintiff thereafter filed and served his Second Supplemental Complaint and, ultimately,

25

his Second Amended Complaint. In the complaints, Plaintiff has alleged several California state-

26

law claims. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: Retaliation under California Health and Safety Code

27

§1278.5; Retaliation under California Labor Code §1102.5; Retaliation under California

28 -2DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 251

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 3 of 5

I

Government Code §12945.1 et seq.; Violation ofCFRA, Califomia Government Code §12945.1;

2

Disability discrimination nnder Califomia Govemment Code §12940(a); Failure to provide

3

reasonable accommodation under Califomia Government Code §12940(m); Failure to engage in

4

a good-faith interactive process under Califomia Government Code §12940(n) and; FEHA

5

retaliation under California Government Code §12940(h).

6

ARGUMENT

7

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS INADEQUATE AND DID NOT PUT THE COUNTY ON

8

NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY FILED

9

California Government Code §945.4 provides that "no suit for money or damages may be

10

brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented.

II

.. until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity ..." Section 910 requires

12

that a claim contain a description of the "circnmstances of the occurrence or transaction" that

13

gave rise to the alleged claim.

14 15

In City a/San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Ca1.3d 447, the Califomia Supreme Co described the purpose of the claims statutes as follows:

16

[T]he purpose of these statutes is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense oflitigation. [Citations omitted] It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity's actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.

17 18 19 20 21

Id. at 455. The courts have consistently applied this interpretation. For example, in Fall River Joint

22

Unified School District v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, the court of appeal held

23

that, if a plaintiff relies on more than one theory of recovery, each cause of action must have

24

been reflected in a timely claim.

25

In Fall River, the real party in interest, a minor, was injured when the steel door of a

26

school building struck his head. His original complaint mirrored the claim he had filed with the

27

District and alleged liability for dangerous condition and negligent maintenance. However,

28 -3DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 251

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 4 of 5

1

about eight months later, he filed an amended complaint alleging a third cause of action for

2

negligent failure to supervise students engaged in "dangerous horse-play."

3

The District challenged the third cause of action by motion for judgment on the pleadings

4

on the ground that plaintiffs claim had not given the District notice of the failure-to-supervise

5

theory. The trial court denied the District's motion but the appellate court reversed, holding

6

"denial of that motion was an abuse of discretion." Id. at 435. Because the plaintiff had failed to

7

include facts regarding his new third cause of action in his claim, judgment on the pleadings was

8

appropriate.

9

In Donahue v. State o/California (1986) 178 Ca1.App.3d 795, an order granting

10

judgment on the pleadings was upheld where the plaintiff sued for damages incurred when his

11

automobile was involved in an accident with one driven by a minor who was taking his driver's

12

license test. The claim filed with the State alleged negligence in permitting an uninsured driver

13

to take the test. However, the civil complaint filed in court asserted the State employee who

14

conducted the test failed to instruct, direct and control the driver in the operation of his vehicle.

15

(Id. at pg. 804.) The court concluded that "permitting an uninsured motorist to take a driving test

16

is not the factual equivalent of the failure to control or direct the motorist in the course of his

17

examination." (Id.)

18

InState ex reI. Dept. o/Transportation v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Ca1.App.3d 331,

19

plaintiff alleged damages following a mudslide when an embankment supporting Highway 101

20

above Sausalito failed. The State demurred and the plaintiffs amended. Plaintiffs' amended

21

complaint raised claims that were not in their claim, including a cause of action for damages for

22

physical and mental injuries. The trial court denied the State's second demurrer, motion for

23

partial summary judgment, and motion to strike, and ordered sanctions against the State. The

24

State appealed and the appellate court granted a writ of mandate in favor of the State. The

25

appellate court held the plaintiff's failure to include their personal injury claim in the claim they

26

had presented to the State was fatal and the State's demurrer should have been sustained without

27

leave to amend. Id. at 338-339.

28 -4DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 251

Filed 11/13/2008

Page 5 of 5

See, also, Nelson v. State ofCalifornia (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 72; Lopez v. Southern Cal.

2

Permanente Medical Group_(l981) lIS Cal.App.3d 673; Shelton v. Sup. Ct. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 66.

3

Here, Plaintiff s claim did not put the County on notice of the Claims Plaintiff actually

4

filed in his complaint. None of the Claims in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint are

5

identified or described in his claim. His claim contains no allegation and no factual description

6

of any violation of CFRA, no allegation of "disability," "depression," "whistleblowing" to a

7

governmental agency, "reasonable accommodation," failure to accommodate or failure to engage

8

in the interactive process - allegations that are all integral to his complaint.

9

Conversely, his complaint does not contain a single theory identified in his claim: breach

10

of contract, wrongful termination, conspiracy, per se libel, negligent hiring, negligent supervisio

11

or negligent retention.

12

There is no congruence between his claim and his complaint.

13

Nothing in Plaintiffs claim put the County on notice of the state-law Claims Plaintiff

14

ultimately pleaded in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Claims

15

of his Second Amended Complaint.

16 17 18

Consequently, Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings on all state law Claims in the Second Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted,

19

20

Dated: November 13,2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

21 22 23

By: lsi Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

24 25 26

27

28 -5DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS