1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Sep 03, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 RENATA S. MOON, an No. 2:24-cv-00327-RLP individual, 8
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR v. PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE 10 PLEADINGS WASHINGTON STATE 11 UNIVERSITY, a Washington State Agency; KIRK SCHULZ, President of 12 Washington State University, in his official and individual capacities; 13 DARYLL DEWALD, Chancellor of Washington State University, Spokane, 14 in his official and individual capacities; JOHN TOMKOWIAK, former and 15 founding Dean of Washington State University Elon S. Floyd, a Washington 16 State Agency; JAMES RECORD, Dean of Washington State University Elon S. 17 Floyd College of Medicine, in his official and individual capacities; 18 DAWN COOPER, Dean for Accreditation, Assessment and 19 Evaluation, in her official and individual capacities; RADHA NANDAGOPAL, 20 Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and 1 Continuing Professional Development, in her official and individual capacities; 2 GAIL CHERMAK, Association Dean of Faculty and Affairs, in her individual 3 capacity; LISA BURCH-WINDREM, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, in 4 her official and individual capacity; JEFF HANEY, Chair of Department of 5 Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, in his official and individual 6 capacities; KEN ROBERTS, Department Chair of Translational 7 Medicine & Physiology and former Interim Associate Dean for Clinical 8 Education, Department Chair of Translational Medicine & Physiology 9 and Interim Associate Dean for Clinical Education, in his official and individual 10 capacity, Defendants. 11 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 12 Pleadings. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff is represented by Karen Osborne. Defendants are 13 represented by Paul Lawrence, Zachary Pekelis, and Meha Goyal. The matter was 14 submitted to the Court without oral argument. 15 Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings regarding those causes of 16 action which are barred by the statute of limitations. Dr. Moon agrees that her 17 removal from teaching and imposition of a remediation plan took place outside the 18 limitations period. Dr. Moon contends she provided information regarding those 19 events only as background to her other timely claims. Because the events at issue 20 1 took place outside the limitations period, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment 2 on the Pleadings, ECF No. 31, is granted.
3 BACKGROUND 4 Dr. Moon was a professor at the Washington State University Elon S. Floyd 5 College of Medicine. In March 2021, Dr. Moon’s supervisor met with Dr. Moon to
6 discuss student mistreatment allegations made by some of her students. According 7 to Dr. Moon, at that meeting she was removed from teaching and instructed to 8 have no further contact with any medical students pending an investigation. 9 As a result of the allegations, in May 2021 a plan of remediation was
10 developed which included training and other activities to be completed by Dr. 11 Moon. The Complaint alleges Dr. Moon was also required to attend trainings on 12 her own time, and that she was required to attend faculty development sessions that
13 were politically charged and biased. 14 Dr. Moon returned to teaching in fall of 2021. Her contract was renewed on 15 June 30, 2022, and she taught during the 2022-23 academic school year. 16 The Complaint also alleges other facts not relevant to this motion.
17 In September 2024, Dr. Moon filed a Complaint alleging eight causes of 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including violations of her First Amendment right 19 to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal
20 protection. An additional cause of action is alleged for violation of the Washington 1 State Constitution. Dr. Moon seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and 2 attorney fees. ECF No. 1.
3 The lawsuit named as defendants Washington State University and ten 4 individuals including the university president, chancellor, former medical school 5 dean, interim medical school dean, and other deans and department chairs.
6 Previously, eight of the individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for 7 failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part and denied in part. All 8 claims against defendants Kirk Schulz, Darryl Dewald, and Radha Nandagopal 9 were dismissed. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 against defendant Dawn Cooper, Lisa
10 Burtch-Windrem, and Ken Roberts in their official capacities were dismissed. 11 Claim 9 was dismissed as to all moving defendants. 12 Defendants now move for partial judgment on the pleadings for claims
13 barred by the statute of limitations. 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW
15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that a party may move for 16 judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but before trial. Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 12(c). A motion under Rule 12(c) tests the legal sufficiency of the 18 complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 19 General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. 637 F.3d 1047, 1063 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). The
20 analysis is “substantially identical” to that of a motion to dismiss under Rule 1 12(b)(6): a court must determine whether, crediting the factual allegations as true, 2 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Chavez v. United
3 States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The principal difference between the 4 two motions is the timing of the filing. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 5 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
6 Under both standards, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, 7 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 8 U.S. at 678. In other words, the complaint must contain “well-pleaded facts” from 9 which the Court can “infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at
10 679. If a court determines the complaint does not meet the standard set forth under 11 Rule 2(c), a court may grant a motion with leave to amend, but it need not do so if 12 amendment would be futile. See Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454
13 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 ANALYSIS 15 Defendants contend the claims based on Dr. Moon’s removal from teaching 16 and remediation plan in spring of 2021 are barred by the statute of limitations. In
17 Washington, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is three years. Joshua v. 18 Newell, 871 F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing RCW 4.16.080(2)). The statute 19 of limitations for a § 1983 claim begins to run when the cause of action accrues,
20 which is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the 1 basis of the action. RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th 2 Cir. 2002). The action accrues “when the operative decision was made, not when
3 the decision [was] carried out.” Id. at 1059. In employment cases, the issue is when 4 the plaintiff became aware of the adverse employment action, not when the effects 5 of allegedly discriminatory action occurred. Id.; see Chardon v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Sep 03, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 RENATA S. MOON, an No. 2:24-cv-00327-RLP individual, 8
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR v. PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE 10 PLEADINGS WASHINGTON STATE 11 UNIVERSITY, a Washington State Agency; KIRK SCHULZ, President of 12 Washington State University, in his official and individual capacities; 13 DARYLL DEWALD, Chancellor of Washington State University, Spokane, 14 in his official and individual capacities; JOHN TOMKOWIAK, former and 15 founding Dean of Washington State University Elon S. Floyd, a Washington 16 State Agency; JAMES RECORD, Dean of Washington State University Elon S. 17 Floyd College of Medicine, in his official and individual capacities; 18 DAWN COOPER, Dean for Accreditation, Assessment and 19 Evaluation, in her official and individual capacities; RADHA NANDAGOPAL, 20 Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and 1 Continuing Professional Development, in her official and individual capacities; 2 GAIL CHERMAK, Association Dean of Faculty and Affairs, in her individual 3 capacity; LISA BURCH-WINDREM, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, in 4 her official and individual capacity; JEFF HANEY, Chair of Department of 5 Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, in his official and individual 6 capacities; KEN ROBERTS, Department Chair of Translational 7 Medicine & Physiology and former Interim Associate Dean for Clinical 8 Education, Department Chair of Translational Medicine & Physiology 9 and Interim Associate Dean for Clinical Education, in his official and individual 10 capacity, Defendants. 11 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 12 Pleadings. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff is represented by Karen Osborne. Defendants are 13 represented by Paul Lawrence, Zachary Pekelis, and Meha Goyal. The matter was 14 submitted to the Court without oral argument. 15 Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings regarding those causes of 16 action which are barred by the statute of limitations. Dr. Moon agrees that her 17 removal from teaching and imposition of a remediation plan took place outside the 18 limitations period. Dr. Moon contends she provided information regarding those 19 events only as background to her other timely claims. Because the events at issue 20 1 took place outside the limitations period, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment 2 on the Pleadings, ECF No. 31, is granted.
3 BACKGROUND 4 Dr. Moon was a professor at the Washington State University Elon S. Floyd 5 College of Medicine. In March 2021, Dr. Moon’s supervisor met with Dr. Moon to
6 discuss student mistreatment allegations made by some of her students. According 7 to Dr. Moon, at that meeting she was removed from teaching and instructed to 8 have no further contact with any medical students pending an investigation. 9 As a result of the allegations, in May 2021 a plan of remediation was
10 developed which included training and other activities to be completed by Dr. 11 Moon. The Complaint alleges Dr. Moon was also required to attend trainings on 12 her own time, and that she was required to attend faculty development sessions that
13 were politically charged and biased. 14 Dr. Moon returned to teaching in fall of 2021. Her contract was renewed on 15 June 30, 2022, and she taught during the 2022-23 academic school year. 16 The Complaint also alleges other facts not relevant to this motion.
17 In September 2024, Dr. Moon filed a Complaint alleging eight causes of 18 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including violations of her First Amendment right 19 to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal
20 protection. An additional cause of action is alleged for violation of the Washington 1 State Constitution. Dr. Moon seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and 2 attorney fees. ECF No. 1.
3 The lawsuit named as defendants Washington State University and ten 4 individuals including the university president, chancellor, former medical school 5 dean, interim medical school dean, and other deans and department chairs.
6 Previously, eight of the individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for 7 failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part and denied in part. All 8 claims against defendants Kirk Schulz, Darryl Dewald, and Radha Nandagopal 9 were dismissed. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 against defendant Dawn Cooper, Lisa
10 Burtch-Windrem, and Ken Roberts in their official capacities were dismissed. 11 Claim 9 was dismissed as to all moving defendants. 12 Defendants now move for partial judgment on the pleadings for claims
13 barred by the statute of limitations. 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW
15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that a party may move for 16 judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but before trial. Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 12(c). A motion under Rule 12(c) tests the legal sufficiency of the 18 complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 19 General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. 637 F.3d 1047, 1063 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011). The
20 analysis is “substantially identical” to that of a motion to dismiss under Rule 1 12(b)(6): a court must determine whether, crediting the factual allegations as true, 2 the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Chavez v. United
3 States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The principal difference between the 4 two motions is the timing of the filing. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 5 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
6 Under both standards, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, 7 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 8 U.S. at 678. In other words, the complaint must contain “well-pleaded facts” from 9 which the Court can “infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at
10 679. If a court determines the complaint does not meet the standard set forth under 11 Rule 2(c), a court may grant a motion with leave to amend, but it need not do so if 12 amendment would be futile. See Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454
13 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). 14 ANALYSIS 15 Defendants contend the claims based on Dr. Moon’s removal from teaching 16 and remediation plan in spring of 2021 are barred by the statute of limitations. In
17 Washington, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is three years. Joshua v. 18 Newell, 871 F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing RCW 4.16.080(2)). The statute 19 of limitations for a § 1983 claim begins to run when the cause of action accrues,
20 which is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the 1 basis of the action. RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1058 (9th 2 Cir. 2002). The action accrues “when the operative decision was made, not when
3 the decision [was] carried out.” Id. at 1059. In employment cases, the issue is when 4 the plaintiff became aware of the adverse employment action, not when the effects 5 of allegedly discriminatory action occurred. Id.; see Chardon v. Fernandez, 454
6 U.S. 6, 8 (1981). 7 Defendants observe the Complaint alleges that Dr. Moon’s claims regarding 8 her removal from teaching and a remediation plan are based on actions which 9 occurred at the latest in March and May 2021, respectively, when Dr. Moon
10 learned of the “operative decision[s]” regarding the adverse actions she claims 11 violated her rights. RK Ventures, Inc., 307 F.3d at 1059. Dr. Moon filed her 12 Complaint on September 24, 2024, four to six months after the statute of
13 limitations expired. Therefore, Dr. Moon’s claims based on her removal from 14 teaching and the remediation plan are time-barred. 15 Dr. Moon does not contest that claims based on these events are time-barred, 16 but asserts they were only included the Complaint as background evidence to
17 support her other claims. Regardless, the Court concludes that any claims based on 18 Dr. Moon’s removal from teaching in March 2021 and the remediation plan made 19 in May 2021 are barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. The
20 Court makes no finding regarding the relevance of those alleged events as to Dr. 2|| Moon’s other claims. 3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 31, 5 is GRANTED. 6 2. Claims 1-8 (alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Claim 9 7 (alleging violations of Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State 8 Constitution) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they 9 seek to impose liability on Defendants for allegedly removing Plaintiff 10 from teaching or requiring her to complete remediation activities. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 12|| Order and forward copies to counsel. 13 DATED September 3, 2025.
15 Rebecca L- Pennell United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION EOP DARTTIAT TIINGNMENT ON TUE DT GANINGS. _ 7