Andrea McPhee v. Christa Siegenthaler, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA MCPHEE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01544-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 CHRISTA SIEGENTHALER, et al., (ECF No. 13) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Andrea McPhee is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Pending before the 18 Court is Defendants Christa Siegenthaler, Sidda Reddy Pedaballi, Sudhakar Reddy 19 Vatti, Gretchen Higgins, and Jennifer King’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 20 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, motion to quash service of process 21 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). (ECF No. 13.) Briefing is complete on the pending motion. On 22 September 26, 2025, the Court submitted the motion upon the record and briefs on file 23 and vacated the October 14, 2025 hearing. 9/26/2025 Order (ECF No. 19). For the 24 reasons that follow, the Court recommends GRANTING Defendants’ motion to dismiss 25 with leave to amend. 26 / / / 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Allegations2 3 As best as the Court can tell, Plaintiff’s allegations stem from a denial of a 4 promotion opportunity in Caltrans in 2018. FAC at 9. Plaintiff appears to allege she was 5 discriminated against based on her gender. Id. Plaintiff further alleges she reached out 6 to Defendant Gretchen Higgins for “reasonable accommodation” but did not receive a 7 response. Id. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant Sudhakar Reddy Vatti did not provide 8 her with feedback regarding her denial in 2018; Defendant Gretchen Higgins had failed 9 to respond to Plaintiff’s concern regarding Caltrans’ deficiencies in “notifying new 10 employees of worker’s compensation law/procedures and promotional/hiring 11 discrepancies”; and Defendant Jennifer King’s had “denied any unfair hiring practices 12 within any of the Divisions within Caltrans” despite evidence indicating that “Caltrans 13 engages in active discriminatory practices to avoid paying fair wages.” Id. 14 B. Procedural Posture 15 Plaintiff initiated this action on June 3, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On July 21, 2025, 16 Plaintiff filed her FAC as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 15(a)(1). See FAC. Plaintiff brings this action against the following five (5) defendants: 18 (1) Christa Siegenthaler; (2) Sidda Reddy Pedaballi; (3) Sudhakar Reddy Vatti; 19 (4) Gretchen Higgins; and (5) Jennifer King. Id. at 2-3. The FAC generally alleges the 20 basis for federal question jurisdiction is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 21 (“ADA”) “and other ADA Amendments Act of 2008.” FAC at 4. No specific claim is 22 asserted. See generally FAC. 23 On August 19, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, 24 motion to quash, and noticed it before the assigned district judge. (ECF No. 11.) On the 25

26 2 These facts primarily derive from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 6), which are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. 27 Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). However, the Court does not assume the truth of any conclusory factual allegations or legal conclusions. 28 Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 same day, the assigned district judge issued an order directing Defendants to comply 2 with Local Rules 302(c)(21) and 230(a) and re-notice their defective motion before the 3 undersigned. 8/19/2025 Order (ECF No. 12). On August 20, 2025, Defendants filed the 4 pending motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion to quash and noticed it for a 5 October 14, 2025 hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 13.) On August 29, 2025, 6 Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendants filed a reply on September 11, 2025. (ECF 7 Nos. 16, 17.) On September 26, 2025, the Court took Defendants’ motion under 8 submission on the papers, without oral argument, and vacated the October 14, 2025 9 hearing. 9/26/2025 Order. Plaintiff also filed numerous filings labeled as “oppositions” on 10 September 17, 2025 (ECF No. 18), October 3, 2025 (ECF No. 21), October 9, 2025 11 (ECF No. 22), December 9, 2025 (ECF No. 23), and February 4, 2026 (ECF No. 25). 12 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 A. Pro Se Pleadings, Construction and Amendment 14 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and afforded the benefit of any 15 doubt. Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2023). Upon dismissal of any 16 claims, the court must tell a pro se plaintiff of a pleading’s deficiencies and provide an 17 opportunity to cure such defects. Garity v. APWU Nat'l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th 18 Cir. 2016). However, if amendment would be futile, leave to amend does not need to be 19 provided. Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023). 20 To determine the propriety of a dismissal motion, the court may not consider facts 21 raised outside the complaint (such as in an opposition brief), but it may consider such 22 facts when deciding whether to grant leave to amend. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 23 1026 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 B. Rule 8 Pleading 25 Notice pleading in federal court requires that the complaint “give the defendant 26 fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. 27 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Pursuant 28 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain 1 statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction…; (2) a short and plain statement of 2 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief 3 sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” The 4 complaint must clearly and fully set forth “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what 5 theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 6 (9th Cir. 1996). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Id. Rule 8(d)’s 7 requirement that each averment of a pleading be “‘simple, concise, and direct,’ applies to 8 good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6).” 9 Id. at 1179. “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend 10 on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” Id. 11 C. Insufficient Service of Process under Rule 12(b)(5) 12 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), a defendant may move to 13 dismiss the action where the plaintiff has failed to effect proper service of process in 14 compliance with the requirements set forth under Rule 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). 15 Federal courts only acquire jurisdiction over a defendant after the defendant is properly 16 served under Rule 4. See Omni Capital Int'l Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 17 (1987). When a defendant challenges service, the plaintiff bears the burden of 18 establishing that service was valid under Rule 4. See Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 19 801 (9th Cir. 2004). If service of process is found insufficient under Rule 4, “[t]he choice 20 between dismissal and quashing service of process is in the district court's discretion.” 21 S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 22 Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976)). 23 D. Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6) 24 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon 25 which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if 26 it either lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 27 theory. Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). When considering 28 whether a claim has been stated, the court must accept the well-pleaded factual 1 allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non- 2 moving party. Id. However, the court is not required to accept as true conclusory factual 3 allegations contradicted by documents referenced in the complaint, or legal conclusions 4 merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Paulsen, 559 F.3d at 5 1071. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Rule 8. Def. 9 Mot. at 6-7 (ECF No. 13.) Alternatively, Defendants also move to quash service of 10 process pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Id. at 5-6. Because 11 the Court finds the FAC fails to state a claim and should be dismissed with leave to 12 amend, the Court will not address Defendants’ alternative ground to quash service of 13 process. 14 Prior to addressing Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court will first address 15 Plaintiff’s multiple oppositions to the motion to dismiss. 16 A. Plaintiff’s Multiple Oppositions 17 On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a timely opposition to Defendants’ motion to 18 dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants filed a reply on September 11, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) 19 Despite briefing being complete on the motion, Plaintiff filed multiple “oppositions” 20 without leave of court on September 17, 2025 (ECF No. 18), October 3, 2025 (ECF No. 21 21), October 9, 2025 (ECF No. 22), December 9, 2025 (ECF No. 23), and February 4, 22 2026 (ECF No. 25). The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s unauthorized oppositions 23 (ECF Nos. 18, 21, 22, 23, 25) in its review of the motion to dismiss. 24 To the extent Plaintiff sought to file a sur-reply to Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff did 25 not have a right to file a sur-reply under the Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(m). In addition, Defendants’ reply did not raise 27 any new arguments or evidence that would justify granting a request to file a sur-reply. 28 / / / 1 B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 2 Defendants move to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. Def. Mot. The 3 Court finds the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against Defendants 4 because the FAC does not identify a specific claim and the grounds on which they rest in 5 compliance with Rule 8. 6 The FAC does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required by 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims and the 8 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 9 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v. 10 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 11 pleading policy, even a pro se litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the 12 elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 13 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the FAC does not identify a specific cause of action 14 or provide sufficient allegations supporting a cognizable legal claim against any 15 defendant. The FAC therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and is 16 subject to dismissal. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 1996) 17 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who is 18 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”). 19 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to bring a claim for employment discrimination 20 under the ADA, Plaintiff must establish she: (1) is a disabled person within the meaning 21 of the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) has suffered an adverse 22 employment action because of her disability. See Hutton v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 23 273 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2001). As currently pled, Plaintiff has not alleged that she is 24 a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA, or that she suffered an adverse 25 employment action because of her alleged disability. Despite these deficiencies, and in 26 light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, it is at least conceivable she could allege additional facts 27 relating to a claim for employment discrimination under the ADA and leave to amend 28 should be provided. 1 Accordingly, the Court recommends granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss with 2 leave to amend. 3 C. Leave to Amend 4 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se 5 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 6 succinctly. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. Leave to amend should be “freely given when justice 7 so requires” absent any declared or apparent reason, “such as undue delay, bad faith or 8 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 9 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 10 allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment[.]” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 11 178, 182 (1962); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 12 The Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the FAC. 13 Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend her FAC to the extent she can allege 14 facts that sufficiently plead her claims. Plaintiff is warned that conclusory and broad 15 allegations are insufficient to meet Rule 8. Therefore, the Court recommends the FAC be 16 dismissed with leave to amend. 17 The allegations of the amended complaint must be set forth in sequentially 18 numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one 19 before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being 20 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of 21 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help 22 plaintiff organize his complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's 23 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 24 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. The amended complaint filed should be titled 25 “Second Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff should not file a Second Amended 26 Complaint until after the district judge rules on these findings and 27 recommendations. The district judge’s order will address whether Plaintiff has 28 permission to file a Second Amended Complaint and if leave to amend is granted, 1 the deadline for filing. 2 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess 3 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming 4 dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what facts 5 support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 6 complaint must not require the Court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain 7 statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiff[] to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended 8 complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to 9 determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179. 10 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filings 11 in order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 12 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a 13 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the 14 amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any 15 function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED: 18 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) be GRANTED with leave to 19 amend; and 20 2. After any order adopting these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff be 21 granted thirty (30) days from such order to file a Second Amended 22 Complaint consistent with the Court’s order. Failure to timely file an 23 amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be 24 dismissed. Plaintiff should not file a Second Amended Complaint until after 25 the district judge rules on these findings and recommendations. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 27 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 28 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 1 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 2 || be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 3 || reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 4 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 5 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 6 || 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 | Dated: February 12, 2026 C iy S \U 9 CHI S00 KIM 40 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 || 4, mcph1544.25 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28