Nan Zhao v. University of the Pacific, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 NAN ZHAO, Case No. 25-cv-05800-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC, et al., Docket No. 25 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff Nan Zhao, proceeding pro se, has sued the University of the Pacific for sex 13 discrimination under Title IX. She alleges that she experienced sex discrimination in a master’s 14 program course that resulted in an unspecified unfavorable grade. On February 5, 2026, the Court 15 granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, finding that Plaintiff had failed to plead 16 sufficient facts from which the Court could infer that the grade she received was due to sex discrimination. Dkt. No. 23. Dismissal was with leave to amend, and on March 9, 2026, Plaintiff 17 filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 24. Defendant moves again to dismiss. Dkt. No. 25. The 18 Court finds this matter suitable for resolution on the papers. 19 To state a claim against the University under Title IX, Plaintiff must plead that “(1) the 20 defendant educational institution receives federal funding; (2) the plaintiff was excluded from 21 participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any education 22 program or activity; and (3) the latter occurred on the basis of sex.” Schwake v. Arizona Bd. of 23 Regents, 967 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020). In Leyva v. Univ. of Idaho, No. 1:24-cv-00263-DCN, 24 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163819 (D. Idaho Aug. 21, 2025), a plaintiff stated a claim for sex 25 discrimination based on a low grade when she alleged, inter alia, that she was both the only 26 female student in the clinic and the only one who did not receive an A while all the males did 27 receive an A, that a male student in the class won a class award despite not meeting the course 1 requirements, and that her professor made sexist remarks and engaged in an instance of sexual 2 harassment. /d. at *11, 18-19. 3 During oral argument on Defendant’s prior motion to dismiss, the Court explained to 4 Plaintiff the deficiencies in her pleading, directed her to the Leyva case discussed above, and 5 discussed the kinds of facts Plaintiff could plead to satisfy the plausibility standard, e.g., 6 allegations about grades received by other women in the course that would show a pattern of 7 discrimination, remarks showing gender animus, etc. Dkt. No. 23. g Plaintiff's amended complaint does not provide additional facts from which the Court can 9 infer sex discrimination. She now pleads that the course had 31 students, 13 of whom were

10 female. Plaintiffs “team” for course consisted of four students, the other three of whom were male. Plaintiff alleges that her final grade in the course was “one level lower” than one of her " male teammates; she does not allege anything about the grades of the remaining two (and does not allege what grade she received). She makes no allegations about the grades received by other = 8 women in the course. She alleges that in two other courses she took with one of the three 4 professors who supervised her project, she and another female classmate were “among the very IS few students in the class to receive an A- instead of an A.” 16 Plaintiff's amended complaint still provides “only suspicions that she was treated M7 differently due to her sex.” Dkt. No. 23. It does not state facts from which the Court can 18 reasonably infer that sex discrimination was the cause of the grade Plaintiff recetved. Defendant’s 19 ) motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED. At the prior hearing, the Court explained to Plaintiff 20 in detail what steps she must take upon amendment for her complaint to survive and referred her 21 to the district’s Legal Help Center. Given this, the Court is satisfied that allowing further 22 opportunity for amendment would be futile. Dismissal is accordingly with prejudice. 24 25 Dated: 5/27/2026 26 27 28 EDWA . CHEN United States District Judge