Turner v. City & County of San Francisco
892 F. Supp. 2d 1188
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Turner sues the City and County of San Francisco, DPW, and certain DPW officials over alleged improper hiring, retaliation, and due process violations related to his temporary exempt status.
- Plaintiff claims he was qualified but repeatedly not hired for civil service positions and alleges a city scheme to underbid work and overcharge with mapping fees.
- He was hired as a temporary exempt employee in 2007, performed out-of-class work, and sought permanent civil service status.
- In 2009 he was terminated after raising concerns about illegal practices; following termination, he alleges difficulties obtaining health coverage and continued job applications.
- Plaintiff asserts claims under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §526a, Cal. Labor Code §§98.6, 1102.5, Cal. Govt. Code §12653, §8547, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 (due process and First Amendment).
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, with specific rulings on standing, exhaustion, and various §1983, False Claims Act, and state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under §526a | Plaintiff asserts direct taxpayer injury from DPW expenditures. | Defendants contend no direct taxpayer injury is pled. | Plaintiff lacks Article III standing; §526a claim dismissed. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Plaintiff exhausted via DFHE; §98.7 exhaustion not required. | Exhaustion required under §98.7 and §2699.3; penalties unavailable otherwise. | Exhaustion under §98.7 not required; §2699.3 penalties not pled; objections sustained; leave to amend for penalties. |
| §12653 False Claims Act against individuals | Claims against individuals alleged retaliation for exposing false claims. | Only employer can be liable; individuals not liable under §12653(c). | Dismissal of §12653 claim against individual Defendants with prejudice; claims may proceed against CCSF/DPW with leave to amend. |
| §1983 claims (Due Process and First Amendment) | Plaintiff asserts due process (property/liberty) and First Amendment retaliation against multiple defendants. | Monell and individual liability arguments; some claims lack plausible bases. | Due process property interest claims dismissed with prejudice; liberty interest claim dismissed; Monell against CCSF/DPW limited; First Amendment claims partially allowed with leave to amend against some defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2001) (standing requires direct injury and a connection to the challenged expenditure)
- Campbell v. Regents of Univ. of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) (exhaustion rules before courts; Campbell discusses exhaustion in context of Labor Code claims)
- Kreutzer v. City & County of San Francisco, 166 Cal.App.4th 306 (Cal.App. 2008) (temporary exempt status and misclassification; limits on civil service protections from outset)