Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goethe v. State

August 18, 2008

GARY GOETHE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant, the State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, ("Defendant") for racial discrimination claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Defendant now moves to dismiss the First Cause of Action, Plaintiff's disparate impact claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)*fn1 on grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim.

Defendant also moves to dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff's racial discrimination and retaliation claim, and the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiff's claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff's allegations relating to events occurring prior to December 2006 pursuant to Rule 12(f). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.*fn2

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth a factual background for this action in its Order of February 20, 2008, which is incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced herein. Mem. & Order 2-4, February 20, 2008.

On February 20, 2008, this Court dismissed without prejudice the First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint("SAC") on March 13, 2008.

Plaintiff alleges five causes of action in his SAC:

1) Disparate Impact Discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);

2) Disparate Treatment Discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);

3) Retaliation for Engaging in a Protected Activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); 4) Racial Discrimination and Retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 5) Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Defendant filed the current Motion to Dismiss challenging the First Cause of Action in its entirety because Plaintiff failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies. Defendant further challenges the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action in their entirety, arguing that those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, Defendant filed a motion to strike, under Rule 12(f), Plaintiff's allegations contained in paragraphs 11-14 and 54 of the SAC.

Defendant does not challenge Plaintiff's disparate treatment or retaliation claims.

STANDARD

1. Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.