Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Radiah S. Thompson, et al v. Permanente Medical Group

April 29, 2013


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jon S. Tigar United States District Judge



United States District Court Northern District of California

Plaintiff Radiah S. Thompson has filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")*fn1 against

Defendants The Permanente Medical Group ("TPMG") and SEIU, United Healthcare Workers - 15 West ("UHW"). ECF No. 59. In the SAC, Plaintiff claims that Defendant UWH breached its duty 16 of fair representation, and that Defendant TPMG breached its contractual duties, discriminated 17 against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and was negligent towards her. *fn2 18

Defendants have each filed separate motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 62 & 65.

The Court noticed this matter for a hearing on April 11, 2013, but Plaintiff did not appear, and so, with defendants' consent, the Court took the matter under submission without oral argument. Having carefully considered the papers, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND 21 DENIES IN PART Defendant TPMG's motion to dismiss, and GRANTS Defendant UHW's 22 motion to dismiss. 23 24


A. Factual Background and Procedural History 4 construes them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. ECF No. 59. 5 6 and, as required by her employment, a member of Defendant UHW. SAC, at 4:6. Plaintiff was

terminated from her employment on September 11, 2009, after having been suspended pending an

The Court draws the following facts from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and

Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant TPMG from August 28, 1999 to August 28, 2009,

investigation of her having committed "HR compliance violation and workflow infractions" in violation of "Appointment and Advice Call Center usage policy." Id. at 4:18-5:3. 9

Defendant pursued a grievance action regarding her termination, which UHW "found

10 merit" in, and pursued an arbitration action on Plaintiff's behalf regarding her termination. Id. at 11

Exhibit 1, pp. 17-18. On January 14, 2010, Plaintiff was advised by e-mail that her grievance was going to arbitration. Id. at 5:4-6. Thereafter, Plaintiff experienced difficulty communicating with 13 representatives of UHW. She was given "false hope" of getting her job back, and then could not 14 reach the UHW representatives to which she had been referred. Id. at 5:7-11, 5:26-6:3, & 6:24. A 15

UHW representative advised Plaintiff to write an apology letter to Defendant TPMG, and then 16

after the letter was written a different official advised her that she should not have written such a 17 letter. Id. at 7:1. 18

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant TPMG in Solano County Superior Court in

United States District Court District of California

January 2012, and filed an amended complaint ("the Removed Complaint") on February 6, 2012. 20

ECF No. 1. Defendant TPMG removed the case to federal court on March 15, 2012. Id. 21

As late as April 6, 2012, Plaintiff's grievance was scheduled for arbitration in May 2012.

SAC, at p.19. However, on April 24, 2012, Defendant UHW withdrew Plaintiff's grievance. 23

SAC, at p. 20. 24

The Court granted Defendant TPMG's motion to dismiss the Removed Complaint in May 2012, after concluding that Plaintiff was required to exhaust the dispute resolution remedies of her 26 union's collective bargaining agreement before bringing a claim against TPMG. ECF No. 27. In 27 July, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding UHW as Defendant. ECF No. 28

32. The Court granted both Defendants' separate motions to dismiss, on October 3 and December 2 3. ECF Nos. 48 & 55. In its Order granting UHW's motion to dismiss, the Court gave Plaintiff 3 until December 31, 2012 to file an amended complaint, but warned Plaintiff that "the Court 4

When Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as ordered, the Court issued judgment in

[would] not [be] inclined to grant any further leave to amend." ECF No. 55, at 13:3. 5

6 favor of Defendants on January 8, 2013. ECF No. 56. However, on January 15, 2013, after

Plaintiff objected that she had not received the Court's order, the Court vacated its January 8th

Order and provided Plaintiff another opportunity to file an amended complaint by February 15, 2013. ECF No. 57. On February 15, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 9

59. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, which the Court now considers. ECF Nos. 62 & 10

65. 11

C. Legal Standard

United States District Court District of California

13 legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela 14

Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). Dismissal is also proper where the 15 complaint alleges facts that demonstrate that the complaint is barred as a matter of law. See 16

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Jablon v. Dean Witter & 17

Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980). 18

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, "all allegations of material fact are taken as true and

"Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable

19 construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Cahill v. ...

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.