Gottschalk v. City of S.F.

• Decision Date: 12 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. C–12–4531 EMC,C–12–4531 EMC
• Citation: 964 F.Supp.2d 1147
• Parties: Karla Gottschalk, Plaintiff, v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

964 F.Supp.2d 1147

Karla Gottschalk, Plaintiff,

v.City and County of San Francisco, et al., Defendants.

No. C–12–4531 EMC

United States District Court, N.D. California.

August 12, 2013

Karla Gottschalk, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Lauren Marie Monson, San Francisco City Attorney, Amy Diane Super, Deputy City Attorney, Rebecca Ann Falk, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Francisco, CA, Courtney Suzanne Lui, Dept. of Justice, Oakland, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND FOR SANCTIONS

(Docket Nos. 57, 63, 65, 67, 72, 100)

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff in this matter brings suit against a variety of defendants alleging various causes of action that appear to largely stem from her unsuccessful application for employment with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission. This Court previously granted Defendant City and County of San Francisco's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint for failure to conform to the requirements of Rule 8(a). The Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend, but dismissed certain claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 8, 2013. Currently pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants, Docket No. 57; (2) a motion by certain individual Defendants to dismiss for insufficient service of process, Docket No. 63; (3) the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss, Docket No. 65; (4) Defendant City and County of San Francisco's motion to strike and motion to dismiss, Docket No. 67; and (5) Plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions, Docket No. 72. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and hereby rules as follows.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an attorney who is bringing this case pro se, filed the original complaint in this matter on August 29, 2012, alleging various causes of action against a number of defendants in connection with her unsuccessful application for employment with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (“SFHRC”) and her subsequent unsuccessful attempts to challenge SFHRC's failure to hire her. Docket No. 1. After Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) filed a motion to dismiss on September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 17, 2012. Docket No. 17. On November 5, 2012, Defendant CCSF filed a renewed motion to dismiss, motion to strike, or in the alternative for a more definite statement. Docket No. 25.

On February 12, 2013, this Court granted CCSF's motion, finding that Plaintiff's 100–page complaint was largely “incoherent, repetitive, and written in a stream of consciousness style,” and that it was often difficult to discern Plaintiff's factual allegations or the legal basis for the claims she brought. Docket No. 44. The Court thus found that the complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8(a)'s requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement indicating the grounds for jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim, and a demand for relief sought. Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim with leave to amend, and further provided Plaintiff with the specific guidance for any amended complaint:

Additionally, the Court dismissed with prejudice: (1) Plaintiff's claim for national origin discrimination; (2) Plaintiff's claim for violations of California's Unruh Act, for; (3) Plaintiff's claim for “vicarious liability”; (4) Plaintiff's claims for RICO violations as to Defendant CCSF and the individual CCSF Defendants to the degree that they are named in their official capacities; and (5) Plaintiff's claims under § 1981. Id. at 10–15.

On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Docket No. 46. That complaint names the following Defendants: the City and County of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom (former mayor of San Francisco), Edwin M. Lee (current mayor of San Francisco), Theresa Sparks (SFHRC Executive Director), Cecilia Chung (former SFHRC Commissioner), Melissa J. Cayabyab (Client Services Representative with CCSF's Department of Human Resources), Magaly Fernandez (Senior Specialist of EEO Programs with CCSF's Department of Human Resources), Micki Callahan ¹ (CCSF Human Resources Director), Anita Sanchez (former Executive Officer of CCSF Civil Service Commission), California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), Phyllis W. Cheng (Director of DFEH), Michael McGrath (Investigator for DFEH), United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Chai Feldblum (EEOC Commissioner), Michael Baldonando (EEOC District Director), and Does 1–100. ² The complaint brings the following causes of action: (1) Age Discrimination; (2) Gender Expression and Orientation Discrimination; (3) Sex Discrimination; (4) “Orientation” ³ Discrimination; (5) Religious Discrimination; (6) Political Discrimination; (7) Reverse Discrimination; (8) Race Discrimination; (9) Retaliation; (10) “California Department of Fair Employment and Housing—DFEH”; (11) “United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—EEOC”; (12) Fraud & Deceit; (13) “Hate Crime”; (14) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (15) Tortious Racketeering; (16) Deprivation of Civil Rights—§ 1981; (17) Deprivation of Civil Rights—§ 1983; and (18) Deprivation of Civil Rights—§ 1985(3).

The content of the second amended complaint, and the degree to which it reproduces the shortcomings of Plaintiff's earlier complaints, is discussed in more detail in the discussion below. As best as this Court can discern, however, the core of Plaintiff's complaint is as follows. Plaintiff was not selected for a contracts compliance officer position with the SFHRC in the summer of 2010. SAC ¶¶ 15–25. She alleges that during the application process, she contacted various of the individual Defendants who are or were CCSF employees informing them of her status as a heterosexual transsexual woman, and disclosing her age. SAC ¶¶ 16–22. Though she passed a screening examination and was initially told that she was eligible for the position, she was denied the job without an interview. SAC ¶¶ 23–25. She requested an explanation for why she was not selected, but no explanation was ever provided. SAC ¶ 25. Plaintiff appears to also allege that she applied for other positions with CCSF after the SFHRC application, but was also rejected. SAC ¶¶ 28, 30, 32–34. It is not entirely clear whether she is bringing suit based on these subsequent failures to hire, or just on her application to the SFHRC.

Plaintiff filed or attempted to file grievances regarding the SFHRC's failure to hire her with various agencies, including the San Francisco Neighborhood Office, Defendant DFEH, and Defendant EEOC. SAC ¶¶ 26–27, 97–98. She raises various allegations about improprieties in the ways these agencies handled her complaint, though these allegations are often conclusory or difficult to follow. SAC ¶¶ 26–27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 93–98.

Plaintiff filed the currently pending motion for default judgment on April 15, 2013. Docket No. 57. Thereafter, Defendants Callahan, Fernandez, Cayabyab, Chung, Lee, Sparks, and Sanchez (the Individual CCSF Defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them for insufficient service of process. Docket No. 63. Additional motions to dismiss were filed by the Federal Defendants (EEOC, Feldblum, and Baldonado) and the CCSF Defendants (CCSF and the Individual CCSF Defendants, in their official capacities) on May 15, 2013 and May 16, 2013, respectively. Docket Nos. 65, 67. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against the Federal and CCSF Defendants on May 28, 2013. Docket No. 72.

On July 9, 2013, this Court issued a notice indicating that it would rule on the above motions on the papers, and vacating the previously set hearing. Docket No. 96. Without first seeking leave, Plaintiff filed various supplemental materials on July 15, 2013, indicating that they are materials she would have presented to the Court at the hearing. Docket No. 98. The CCSF Defendants subsequently filed a motion requesting that Plaintiff's supplemental materials be struck as improperly filed. Docket No. 100. Having reviewed Plaintiff's supplemental materials, this Court concludes that nothing in this filing changes the Court's analysis on these motions. The Court therefore DENIES the CCSF Defendant's motion to strike the supplemental pleadings as moot.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to Comply with Rule 8(a)

Among other arguments, the CCSF Defendants' ⁴ motion to dismiss argues that Plaintiff's second amended complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that it fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and fails to comply with this Court's previous order dismissing the first amended complaint. Plaintiff filed no timely response to this motion, but filed a two page opposition one week late. Docket No. 82. Her opposition briefly addresses CCSF's motion to strike, but does not seem to address CCSF's motion to dismiss in any meaningful way. ⁵

As this Court noted in its previous order dismissing Plaintiff's claim for failure to comply with Rule 8(a), the Ninth Circuit has held that dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is proper where “the very prolixity of the complaint made it difficult to determine just what circumstances were supposed to have given rise to the various causes of action.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996); see alsoNevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981); Schmidt v. Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir.1980). “Rule 8(a) has ‘been held to be violated by a pleading that was needlessly long, or a complaint that was highly repetitious, or confused, or consisted of incomprehensible rambling.’ ” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting...