Gottschalk v. City & County of San Francisco
964 F. Supp. 2d 1147
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff sued multiple defendants over an unsuccessful SFHRC job application and related grievances.
- Court previously dismissed CCSF’s first amended complaint for Rule 8(a) noncompliance and allowed an amended pleading.
- Second amended complaint (SAC) names CCSF, several CCSF officials, DFEH, EEOC, and others, alleging broad discrimination and civil-rights claims.
- Court found SAC largely incoherent, conclusory, and failing to identify defendants and factual bases for claims.
- Court granted CCSF’s Rule 8(a) dismissal with prejudice and found many claims barred by sovereign immunity or lacking viable theory; denied default judgment and Rule 11 sanctions requests.
- Court noted repeated failure to comply with its explicit instructions for pleading and the Rule 8(a) standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8(a) compliance by SAC | SAC should proceed despite length | SAC fails to meet Rule 8(a) and prior order | SAC dismissed with prejudice for Rule 8(a) noncompliance |
| Sovereign immunity and viable federal claims | Federal claims valid against EEOC/DFEH | No waiver; sovereign immunity barred | Federal claims dismissed with prejudice; tort and §1981/§1983/§1985 claims barred |
| Dismissal with prejudice appropriate | Amendment could cure defects | Further amendment futile; baseless claims | Complaint dismissed with prejudice; further amendment unlikely to help |
| Plaintiff's default judgment and Rule 11 sanctions | Request for default and sanctions warranted | Procedural defects; lack of evidence; no safe harbor compliance | Default judgment and Rule 11 sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facts must support plausible claim, not mere speculation)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 dismissal warranted for prolix, confusing pleadings)
- Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981) (rambling pleadings may justify Rule 8 dismissal)
- Ward v. E.E.O.C., 719 F.2d 311 (9th Cir. 1983) (Title VII private right against EEOC not available for third-party investigations)
- Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1992) (FTCA jurisdictional presentment requirements are strict)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2006) (§1981 requires impairment of a contractual relationship)