United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Denise Stripling ("Stripling") brings this civil action against Defendants Regents of the University of California ("Regents"), University of California San Francisco ("UCSF"), John Plotts, Michael Bade, and Craig Peterson ("individual UCSF defendants") for claims arising generally from her employment with the Regents and ultimate termination. Plaintiff in a pro se capacity alleges twenty-six causes of action and seeks damages.
The Regents have filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Stripling has failed to state a claim for myriad reasons, chiefly that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. No. 11 ("Mot.").) Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss, and provides leave to amend with respect to those claims for which the Court cannot, at this juncture, discern an immediate bar. infliction of emotional distress claim, or a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, on the facts as alleged. Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim is therefore GRANTED without prejudice. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court provides plaintiff an opportunity to amend her claim in order to include additional factual allegations to support these causes of action.
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as set forth above. In summary, the holdings are as follows:
1. First Cause of Action: DISMISSED;
2. Second through Seventeenth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-Second Causes of Action: DISMISSED as to the Regents and defendants in their official capacities; plaintiff given Leave to Amend to clarify which causes of action pertain to defendants in their individual capacities and provide further factual allegations;
3. Eighteenth Cause of Action: Motion to dismiss is DENIED;
4. Nineteenth and Twentieth Causes of Action: DISMISSED as to individual defendants in their individual capacities, but plaintiff is granted Leave to Amend;
5. Twenty-Third Cause of Action: DISMISSED as to the Regents, but plaintiff is granted Leave to Amend with respect to her claim against individual defendants;
6. Twenty-Fourth Cause of Action: DISMISSED with Leave to Amend;
7. Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Causes of Action: DISMISSED with Leave to Amend.
Any Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than thirty-five days following the issuance of this Order.
The Court notes that the issues presented in this case are complex, and that as a pro se litigant, plaintiff has not had the benefit of legal assistance in drafting her complaint or in responding to defendants' highly technical legal arguments. The Court further notes that as a pro se litigant, plaintiff may seek assistance at the Court's Legal Help Center if she makes an appointment. The Legal ...