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.

Shoemaker v. County of Glenn

November 22, 2010

DAVID J. SHOEMAKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE COUNTY OF GLENN; THE GLENN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF GLENN'S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant County of Glenn's ("County") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8). County asks the Court to dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1) filed by Plaintiff David J. Shoemaker ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff opposes the motion.*fn1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 3, 2005, Plaintiff signed the Employment Agreement For the Position of Glenn County Administrative Officer (Plaintiff Exhibit A). Plaintiff alleges that he was to remain in the "exclusive employ" of the Glenn County Board of Supervisors ("Board"), until January 1, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that an amendment to the Employment Agreement extended Plaintiff's employment to January 1, 2011 (Plaintiff Exhibit B).

The Complaint alleges that on August 18, 2009, County notified Plaintiff that the employment extension was "invalid" and that Plaintiff's employment would end on January 1, 2010, one year prior to the contractual expiration date.

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of one year's salary of $115,424.40 plus other expenses, costs, and fees.

Plaintiff alleges that he was given no notice of any charges against him, nor given the opportunity to present any evidence regarding his competency to perform the duties required by his employment contract.

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that because the County and the Board breached the Employment Agreement, they deprived him of his property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

II. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

1. Motion to Dismiss

A party may move to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure section 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1975), overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972). Assertions that are mere "legal conclusions," however, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff needs to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff fails to state a claim supportable by a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Upon granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court has discretion to allow leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure section 15(a). "Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear... that the complaint could not be saved by ...


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.