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.

Solesbee v. County of Inyo

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 16, 2015

TANYA SOLESBEE, an individual, Plaintiff,
COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT, government entity, ROBERT MAYHUGH, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.


ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

In this action for damages, Defendant County of Inyo ("County") has moved to dismiss the second claim for relief of plaintiff Tanya Solesbee ("Plaintiff"), which alleges liability against County pursuant to Monell v. Dep't Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) for violation of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The currently operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was filed on August 7, 2014, following the court's dismissal without prejudice of a similar claim in Plaintiffs' original complaint. See Doc. # 36 at 13:6-18. Plaintiff's second claim for relief is the only claim currently alleged against County. For the reasons that follow, the court will deny County's motion to dismiss.


For purposes of the motion presently before the court, the facts of this case can be simply summarized. Plaintiff was sentenced following conviction by the Superior Court to a county-sponsored program called the "Work Release Alternative Program" ("WRAP"). The commitment to the WRAP program required Plaintiff to perform manual labor at County's land fill facility under the supervision of Integrated Waste Management supervisor, Defendant Mayhugh. On her first day at the WRAP worksite, September 4, 2014, Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to three separate instances of sexual harassment or assault by Mayhugh. Plaintiff's original complaint alleged a number of claims alleging violation of statutes protecting employee rights under federal and state law. The court's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part County's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint (hereinafter, the "August 7 Order") held that Plaintiff was not an "employee" within the meaning of the relevant statutes and consequently dismissed Plaintiff's claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and California Gov. Code §§ 12940(j) and 12940(a) with prejudice. The court also dismissed Plaintiff's claim for violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 51.9 with prejudice because the statute protects a class of business relationships not inclusive of the relationship between Plaintiff and County; but pointed out that the claim could be re-alleged under section 52.4.

The court's August 7 Order dismissed Plaintiff's Monell claim because the "facts necessary to sustain a claim for entity liability" were scattered in the complaint and "not incorporated into Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief." Doc. # 36 at 13:12-13. Plaintiff's FAC alleges the following with regard to County's liability under Monell:

Here, after the sexual violence occurred, PLAINTIFF contacted Detective Shane Scott and his partner to tell them about MAYHUGH and report what had happened. Detective Scott and his partner stated that they knew of a couple of other girls with the same complaints. They then asked PLAINTIFF to call MAYHUGH while in their presence. PLAINTIFF did so, but MAYHUGH did not answer the phone. [¶... ¶] Because Detective Scott and his partner stated that they knew a couple of other girls who made the similar complaints of sexual harassment, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the COUNTY had knowledge (or constructive knowledge) of MAYHUGH's previous sexual assaults on other women through its agents in the Police Department, agents in the WRAP program, and/or agents at WASTE MANAGEMENT before the assault on PLAINTIFF.

Doc. # 38 at ¶¶ 44 and 47. It is County's contention that the new allegations set forth in Plaintiff's FAC do not support a claim for Monell liability for failure to supervise.

Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on September 17, 2014. Plaintiff's opposition was filed on October 28, 2014 and Defendant's reply was filed on November 10, 2014. The matter was taken under submission as of November 17, 2014.


A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be based on the failure to allege a cognizable legal theory or the failure to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.1984). To withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must set forth factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) ("Twombly"). While a court considering a motion to dismiss must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), and must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve factual disputes in the pleader's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969), the allegations must be factual in nature. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ("a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do"). The pleading standard set by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "does not require detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) ("Iqbal").

The Ninth Circuit follows the methodological approach set forth in Iqbal for the assessment of a plaintiff's complaint:

"[A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, ...

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.