Sears v. Housing Authority of the County of Monterey, 5:11-cv-01876

Plaintiff Sears sued HACM, HDC, Ms. Warren, and others in the Northern District of California.
HDC and Warren moved to dismiss; HACM initially joined but was later dismissed from the case.
Plaintiff’s SAC asserts two whistleblower-related claims under California Labor Code §1102.5 and ARRA, plus other claims against HDC/HACM.
Plaintiff alleges HDC/Mr. Warren retaliated after he reported HUD violations and engaged in protected activity; he was terminated in 2010.
Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend to address exhaustion of administrative remedies for the challenged claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sears failed to exhaust administrative remedies for §1102.5 claim	Sears exhausted via a HUD Labor Commissioner filing (Retaliation Complaint)	No exhaustion shown in SAC; no attached proof	Granted; leave to amend granted for exhaustion allegation
Whether Sears exhausted ARRA whistleblower claim	Filed complaints with HUD Inspector General alleging retaliation	No IG complaint alleging retaliation; exhaustion not shown	Dismissed ARRA claim without prejudice; leave to amend granted to plead proper exhaustion

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard—facially plausible claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for stating a claim)
Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (exhaustion requirements in analogous contexts)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend policy after dismissal—liberal standard)
Ritchie v. County of Yolo, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (consideration of documents attached or incorporated by reference on motion to dismiss)
North Star Intl., v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578 (9th Cir. 1983) (judicial notice limits on motion to dismiss)