Sears v. Cnty. of Monterey
| Decision Date | 03 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C 11-01876 SBA |
| Parties | THOMAS M. SEARS AND BRENDA L. STEALY SEARS, Pro Se Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, a County formed within the State of California 1850, as a for profit corporation; et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiffs Thomas M. Sears ("Sears") and his wife, Brenda L. Sealy-Sears ("Sealy-Sears"), bring the instant pro se action against twenty-five entities and individuals to challenge Sears' termination by Defendants Housing Authority of the County of Monterey ("HACM") and the Monterey County Housing Authority Development Corporation ("HDC") in 2010. The parties are presently before the Court on various motions to dismiss, filed by five groups of Defendants (collectively "Moving Defendants"). Dkt. 53, 56, 61, 64 and 91. Having read and considered the papers submitted and the record in this action, and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the Moving Defendants' respective motions to dismiss. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court adjudicates the instant motion without oral argument.
The following summary is based on the allegations of the Complaint and attached affidavit, which are taken as true for purposes of the instant motions.1 Sears alleges that he is a 67 year-old engineer with extensive experience in managing large scale construction projects. Compl. Ex. ("Aff.") ¶ 5-8, Dkt. 1-1. On October 23, 2006, Sears was hired by HACM as a professional engineer in the position of Senior Construction Manager and Deputy Director of Development. Compl. ¶ 21, Dkt. 1.
In June 2009, Sears allegedly became aware of "certain illegal wrongful practices by defendants." Id. ¶ 32. He notified his supervisor at HACM, Starla Warren ("Warren"), of "said illegal acts" and asked that they be corrected. Id. Warren maintained, however, that such "practices" were "in accord with all laws both state and federal." Id. Thereafter, Sears refused to engage in "illegal and wrongful bidding practices, violations of various and numerous federal laws, billing practices deception, coercive and deceptive practices involving tenants of HACM rental housing projects." Id.
On June 28, 2010, HACM "split away from the development side," resulting in a new non-profit corporation called the "Monterey Housing Authority Development Corporation" (i.e., HDC). Aff. ¶ 18, Dkt. 1-1. Six employees, including Sears, were transferred from HACM to HDC. Id. Warren then became President and Chief Executive Officer of HDC. Id. Sears' first day at HDC was on June 28, 2010. Id.
Sears left for vacation on July 3, 2010. Id. Upon returning to work on July 19, 2010, "[Sears] was terminated without cause" by Warren. Id. ¶ 19. Sears protested his termination, and on August 4, 2010, met with Alan Styles, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for HACM. Id.2 The Board found Warren's termination of Sears to be "wrongful" and reinstated him to his prior position. Id. Sears returned to work on August 27, 2010, but, in contravention to the Board's instructions, was not returned to his role as a Senior Construction Manager. Id.
On a date not specified by Sears, he received a letter stating that he was "not to act as a Senior Construction Manager and that [he] had been removed as a liaison with all projects or future projects." Id. The letter indicated that Paso Robles Development Corporation (whose relationship to Sears is not specified) "had formally requested [that Sears] be removed as a liaison and that Paso Robles issued a letter stating the same." Id. Sears asked for a copy of Paso Robles' letter but his request was rejected by Warren and CSI HR Group LLC ("CSI"), apparently an outside human resource consulting company hired by her. Id.
On September 10, 2010, Sears met with Michael Alliman and Berta Torres of CSI, who informed Sears that sexual harassment allegations had been made against him. Id. ¶ 21. According to Sears, Warren had fabricated the sexual harassment allegations and presented them to CSI. Id. ¶ 21.
On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff "stood up at a public meeting of the Board of Commissioners for [HACM] and presented evidence to them of violations of [various federal statutes"." Aff. ¶ 24. He also voiced similar complaints to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, though it is not clear when that occurred. Compl. ¶ 34.
On October 6, 2010, Warren "illegally" terminated Sears from HDC allegedly for being a "whistleblower." Id. ¶ 22; Aff. ¶ 25. In addition, Sears claims that only the HACM Board, not Warren, had the authority to terminate him. Id. Sears filed for unemploymentbenefits, which were challenged by Warren and apparently denied by the Employment Development Department. Id. Sears appealed the decision to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, though the outcome of such appeal is not stated. Id. ¶ 4.
Acting pro se, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this Court on April 19, 2011. The action was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. Plaintiffs filed a declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, Dkt. 28, and the matter was reassigned to Judge Jeremy Fogel, Dkt. 52. The case was reassigned to the undersigned following Judge Fogel's departure from the Northern District of California as an active judge.
The Complaint, which is far from being a model of clarity, alleges four causes of action, styled as follows: (1) Complaint to Recover Money; (2) Complaint for Negligence Under Federal Law; (3) Co Party Complaint; and (4) Complaint for Intentional Negligence. The gist of Plaintiffs' claims is that he was wrongfully terminated by HACM and/or HDC for being a whistleblower after he complained to Warren, the Chief Executive Officer of HACM and the Director of Development of HDC, inter alia, about illegal and deceptive billing practices.
As Defendants, Plaintiffs have named twenty-five entities and individuals, as follows:
1. County of Monterey ("County") and County Board of Supervisors Fernando Armenta, Louis R. Calgano, Simon Salinas, Jane Parker and David Potter;
2 HDC, HACM, HACM's former CEO and President James S. Nakashima, and HACM's Board of Commissioners and the HDC's Board of Directors Elizabeth Williams, Alan Styles, Thomas Espinoza, Kevin Healy, Josh Stewart, Andrew Jackson, and Merri Bilek; and Starla Warren, President and CEO of HDC and Director of Development for HACM;
3. CSI, its President and CEO Michael Alliman, and CSI employee Berta Torres; 4. Grunksy, Ebey, Farrar & Howell PC ("Grunsky firm") and Thomas N. Griffin, an attorney with the Grunsky firm;
5. Noland, Hamerly, Etiene & Hoss ("the Noland firm"), and Terrence R. O'Conner and Michael Masuda, attorneys with the Noland firm.
While the action was pending before Judge Fogel, various Defendants filed motions to dismiss, as follows:
The remaining Defendants—HACM, HDC, James Nakashima, Kevin Healy, Merri Bilek, Starla Warren and Beca Torres—have not filed motions to dismiss or otherwise responded to the Complaint.
After the motions were filed and scheduled for hearing, Judge Fogel departed from this Court without ruling on any of the motions. Moving Defendants have since renoticed their previously-filed motions on this Court's calendar. The Court has reviewed the motions, which have been fully briefed, and finds them ripe for adjudication.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint may thus be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory, or has not alleged sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts generally "consider only allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to judicial notice." Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2007). The court is to "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2007).
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to "nudge his claims ... across the line from conceivable to plausible." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Stated another way, the allegations must "give the defendant fair notice of what...
To continue reading
Request your trial