United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Re: Docket No. 55]
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
Nga Tuyet Nguyen sues the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (sued as "The Management of Santa Clara Superior Court") for employment discrimination. Defendant moves to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 55. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply. Dkt. Nos. 56, 58. All parties have expressly consented to having all matters proceed before a magistrate judge. The motion is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. The January 27, 2015 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the moving and responding papers, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff is employed by the Superior Court Hall of Justice, Public Services Division as a Legal Process Clerk III. The second amended complaint alleges a series of incidents that occurred during her employment with the court.
Plaintiff was assigned to work in an "empty and unsecured building that holds in its possession checks and money from the Traffic Court." SAC at 1. In 2006 or 2007, Plaintiff left the Traffic Court filing area after she saw two men looking into the building after 5 p.m. Id. at 3. She was also "observed" by the manager of the Traffic Court. Id.
Plaintiff was required to file stamp thirty-six exhibits in the Clerk's Office, in violation of court procedures. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff's supervisor issued Plaintiff a verbal warning for failing to open emails in a timely fashion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff discovered that her computer's default settings caused her emails to be delayed. Id.
Plaintiff's supervisor informed her of a bail entry mistake that Plaintiff believes was entered by someone else. Id.
Plaintiff was called a "pretty thief" by coworkers and investigated for missing checks. Id. at 3. She was subsequently "supervised" by court staff on the street, in restaurants, in parking lots, and when she entered and exited the restroom. Id.
In 2010, Plaintiff applied to be a Court Room Clerk. Id. at 4. In July 2011, Plaintiff applied to be a Court Specialist. Id. Although Plaintiff was qualified for both positions, she was not allowed to test or interview for them. Id. Younger workers, none of whom were Vietnamese, were selected to take the written examination for the clerk position. Id. In addition, "individuals outside [Plaintiff's] age status" were selected for the Courtroom Specialist position. Id.
Plaintiff was not allowed to participate in group training that younger coworkers were allowed to participate in. Id. at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff's vacation preferences were disregarded despite her seniority. Id.
Plaintiff filed suit in March 2014. The original complaint alleged national origin discrimination, sexual harassment, and age discrimination. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. Dkt. Nos. 15, 26. The Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claims based on national origin discrimination and age discrimination, and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claim based on sexual harassment.
In September 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 29. The first amended complaint alleged race and color discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff subsequently filed another copy of the first amended complaint along with four pages of additional allegations labeled "Supplemental Information." Dkt. No. 30. The "Supplemental Information" alleged incidents relating to age discrimination and sexual harassment. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which was granted with leave to amend. Dkt. Nos. 31, 44. Specifically, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claims based on national origin discrimination and age discrimination. The Court did not consider Plaintiff's claims for race and color discrimination and retaliation because they were not brought in the original complaint. In addition, the Court did not consider Plaintiff's claim for sexual harassment because it was previously dismissed without leave to amend.
In December 2014, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 50. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 55. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply. Dkt. Nos. 56, 58. Plaintiff subsequently filed "Response to the Defendant's Reply to the Opposition to Motion to the Motion to Dismiss ...