Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System
3:16-cv-07414
N.D. Cal.Jul 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva, an ECG technician, was fired by Alameda Health System and filed an administrative retaliation/grievance with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).
- Four individual DLSE employees (Santos, Daly, Healy, Rood) investigated and concluded there was insufficient evidence of retaliatory discharge.
- Drevaleva sued the DLSE and later sued the four DLSE employees in their personal capacities alleging federal due-process violations and various state-law torts (defamation, fraud, etc.).
- The court previously dismissed claims against the DLSE (including on Eleventh Amendment grounds) and gave leave to amend; the amended complaint included the individual-defendant claims now before the court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court finds the complaint merely disputes DLSE’s conclusions and does not state viable federal or state claims against the individual defendants.
- The court dismissed all claims against the individual DLSE employees with prejudice and ordered entry of judgment terminating the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DLSE employees violated procedural due process | Drevaleva says investigatory process and outcome deprived her of liberty/property | DLSE argues no protected interest was taken and procedure was followed | Court: No viable due-process claim; dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether DLSE decision deprived property/right to sue | Drevaleva contends agency conclusion harmed property/liberty interests | DLSE: She retained ability to sue and has no entitlement to a favored outcome | Court: No cognizable property or liberty interest; claim fails |
| Whether state-law torts survive discretionary-act immunity | Drevaleva alleges defamation, fraud tied to investigation/reporting | DLSE: Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2 grants absolute immunity for discretionary acts | Court: § 820.2 bars state-law claims; dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether statements by DLSE are actionable | Drevaleva alleges defamatory and false statements in reports | DLSE: Cal. Civ. Code § 47 grants absolute privilege to official statements | Court: § 47 bars such claims; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (property/liberty interest analysis)
- Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708 (procedural due-process elements)
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (discretionary/considered decision immunity analysis)
- Kim v. Walker, 208 Cal. App.3d 375 (scope of Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2 immunity)
- Braun v. Bureau of State Audits, 67 Cal. App.4th 1382 (absolute privilege for official investigative statements)