Edward Coach Weinhaus v. Regents of The University of California
2:25-cv-00262
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Edward "Coach" Weinhaus was a lecturer at UCLA from 2016–2022, governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with UC Regents, but alleges additional oral agreements for teaching specific courses.
- Two alleged oral contracts: (a) with Dr. Osborne for the MGMT 169 course (2018) and (b) with the Director of the UME Program for a Social Entrepreneurship course (2023).
- Plaintiff underwent a review for re-appointment as Continuing Lecturer; initial committee recommended appointment, but a later faculty committee denied it, allegedly influenced by student comments referencing plaintiff's Jewish background.
- Dean ultimately declined to reappoint plaintiff in 2023, effectively ending employment, though some teaching/grading continued into April 2024.
- Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserted multiple claims, including religious & national origin discrimination under federal and state law, breach of contract, and various common law theories.
- Defendant UC Regents moved to dismiss, arguing failure to state plausible claims and invoking statutory immunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under Title VII and FEHA | Sufficient facts for discrimination based on religion/national origin | Facts insufficient; relies on review documents | Denied; issues not for resolution at this stage |
| Breach of Contract | Oral contracts/extending CBA or separate contracts existed | Governed by statute; oral contracts unenforceable | Denied; not categorically barred, issue remains |
| Fraudulent Inducement & Misrepresentation | Claims viable; official actions & promises support fraud/misrep | Public entity immunity under Cal. Gov. Code § 818.8 | Granted; dismissed with prejudice due to government immunity |
| Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract & Estoppel | Plaintiff can assert these equitable claims | Public entity immune from quasi-contract theories | Denied; not categorically precluded, further analysis needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Tech., Inc. v. High-Line Med. Instruments Co., 922 F. Supp. 299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (standard for motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Wyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 1998) (allegations construed in plaintiff's favor at motion to dismiss)
- Retired Emps. Ass'n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 52 Cal. 4th 1171 (Cal. 2011) (implied contract claims not categorically barred by CBA)
- Pasadena Live v. City of Pasadena, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (oral contract and quasi-contract claims against public entities)
- Orthopedic Specialists of S. Cal. v. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 228 Cal. App. 4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (limitations on oral and quasi-contract public entity liability)