Gregory Weaver v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action in Amended Complaint

C.D. Cal.July 25, 2016

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com RACHAEL LAVI, Bar No. 294443 rlavi@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 310.553.5583 Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC; AND LISA HENLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY WEAVER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARCIE WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTER, LLC; LISA HENLEY; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER DEFENDANTS BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. AND BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FED. R. 12(B)(6) Date: August 22, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Room: 840 Trial Date: TBA Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:259 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TO PLAINTIFF GREGORY WEAVER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARCIE WEAVER, AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard in Courtroom 840 of the above-captioned court, located at 255 East Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012, pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Bright Horizons Children’s Centers LLC and Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) will, and hereby do, move the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s First, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action in her Amended Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1718, 1724 (1994), Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protect. Dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 154 (1987), and other authorities cited in Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities. This motion is made after two attempts to confer pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which commenced on July 15, 2016 and continued on July 20, 2016. See Declaration of Shannon Boyce, ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A. This Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Shannon Boyce and accompanying exhibit, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and upon all other papers and pleadings on file in this matter. Dated: July 25, 2016 /s/ Rachael Lavi SHANNON R. BOYCE RACHAEL LAVI LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC; AND LISA HENLEY Firmwide:141734593.2 050113.1030 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:260 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com RACHAEL LAVI, Bar No. 294443 rlavi@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 310.553.5583 Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS, LLC; AND LISA HENLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY WEAVER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARCIE WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTER, LLC; LISA HENLEY; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. AND BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FED. R. 12(B)(6) Date: August 22, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept: 840 Trial Date: TBA Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:261 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i. I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................... 1 III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 2 A. Standard for 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss .................................................. 2 B. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Employment Discrimination and First Cause of Action for Tortious Discharge Are Barred Because She Failed to Timely Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies ................................................................................................... 3 C. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Is Barred By The Exclusive Remedy Provision of the California Workers’ Compensation Act ......................................... 5 D. Leave To Amend Would Be Futile And Should Be Denied ..................... 6 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 7 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:262 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE ii. FEDERAL CASES AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc. 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 6 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept. 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................ 2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................................................... 2, 3 Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network 18 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................. 2 Conley v. Gibson 355 U.S. 41 (1957) ................................................................................................ 2 De La Cruz v. Tormey 582 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1978) .................................................................................. 2 Edwards v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 848 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ..................................................................... 6 Flores v. Flores 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6310 (E.D. Cal. Jan 2015) .............................................. 4 Greenwald v. Bohemian Club, Inc. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44055 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2008) ...................................... 5 Grotz v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154874 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) .................................. 6 Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co. 614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) ................................................................................ 3 Lee v. City of L.A. 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 3 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 3 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:263 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED) PAGE iii. Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc. 885 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 6 Platt v. Electrical 522 F. 3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 7 Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Ctrl. 466 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 2 SEC v. Cross Fin. Servs., Inc. 908 F.Supp. 718 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ........................................................................ 2 Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 3 Smith v. Lowe’s Hiw, Inc. 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 52671 (E.D. Cal. April 14, 2014) .................................... 5 Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc. 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 6 Tien Van Nguyen v. City of Union City 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85219 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2013).................................... 3 Transphase Systems Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co. 839 F. Supp. 711 (C.D. Cal. 1993) ....................................................................... 2 CALIFORNIA CASES Carmichael v. Alfano Temporary Personnel 233 Cal. App. 3d 1126 (1991) .............................................................................. 3 Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595 (1993) ............................................................................... 6 Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protect. Dist. 43 Cal. 3d 148 (1987) ........................................................................................... 5 Gantt v. Sentry Ins. 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874, 824 P.2d 680 (1992) .................................. 5 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:264 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED) PAGE iv. Hine v. Dittrich 228 Cal. App. 3d 59 (1991) .................................................................................. 6 Livitsanos v. Superior Court 2 Cal. 4th 744 (1992) ............................................................................................ 5 Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. 29 Cal. App. 4th 1718 (1994) ............................................................................... 4 Robomatic, Inc. v. Vetco Offshore 225 Cal. App. 3d 270 (1990) ................................................................................ 5 Shoemaker v. Myers 52 Cal. 3d 1 (1990) ............................................................................................... 5 CALIFORNIA STATUTES Cal. Gov. Code, § 12960(d) ....................................................................................... 4 Cal. Labor Code § 3600 et seq. .................................................................................. 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .................................................................. 2 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:265 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s 1 fourth cause of action for employment discrimination, and derivative first cause of action for tortious discharge, both of which are premised on California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), are barred because Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the California Department of Fair Employment (“DFEH”). Although under an obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies within one year, Plaintiff did not file a charge with the DFEH until October 29, 2014, nearly sixteen months after her termination from Defendant Bright Horizons Children’s Centers LLC (“BHCC”) on July 1, 2013. Further, clear case authority establishes that Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is preempted by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. Accordingly, and as set forth in detail herein, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first and fourth causes of action arising under the FEHA, as well as Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS According to her Complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until July 1, 2013. Complaint, ¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 17, 21, 33. Plaintiff did not file her charge against Defendants with the DFEH until over a year later, on October 29, 2014. Complaint, ¶ 41, Ex. A. Thereafter, on June 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants alleging: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of covenant of good faith; (4) employment discrimination; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligent infliction of 1 Plaintiff Marcie Weaver first brought her Complaint in June 2015. The Complaint was subsequently amended to substitute Gregory Weaver, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marcie Weaver, as Plaintiff. For ease of reference, this Motion refers to both individuals collectively as “Plaintiff.” Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:266 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. emotional distress. One year later, on June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which substituted “Gregory Weaver, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marcie Weaver” as the Plaintiff in this action. The Amended Complaint is otherwise identical to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Prior to filing this motion, on July 15, 2016, Defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking to meet and confer in regards to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and this motion to dismiss. Declaration of Shannon Boyce (“Boyce Decl.,”) ¶ 2, Ex. A. Counsel further attempted to telephone opposing counsel to discuss the arguments set forth herein, but received no response. Id. at ¶ 3. III. ARGUMENT A. Standard for 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A motion to dismiss lies where the complaint reveals on its face that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Sacks v. Office of Foreign Assets Ctrl., 466 F.3d 764, 771 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court must decide whether the facts alleged, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to some form of legal remedy. Id.; see also De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978); SEC v. Cross Fin. Servs., Inc., 908 F.Supp. 718, 726-727 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Thus, dismissal of claims is proper where there exists either: (1) a “lack of a cognizable legal theory;” or (2) “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Notably, in making such a determination, the Court need not accept as true conclusory legal allegations “cast in the form of factual allegations[,] if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Transphase Systems Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co., 839 F. Supp. 711, 717 (C.D. Cal. 1993). Further, a motion to Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:267 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. dismiss should be granted when a claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980). To survive a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged must state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). A claim is facially plausible where a plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Tien Van Nguyen v. City of Union City, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85219 at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2013), citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, (2009). That is to say, the facts alleged must demonstrate “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[c]onclusory allegations of law . . . are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss" (citation omitted)). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court properly considers “the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). B. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Employment Discrimination and First Cause of Action for Tortious Discharge Are Barred Because She Failed to Timely Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for employment discrimination is alleged under the FEHA, yet she failed to file her administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year of her termination. See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36, 40, 41, Exh. A. Plaintiff’s claim is thus barred. 2 2 To the extent premised on Plaintiff’s underlying claim for discrimination, Plaintiff’s first cause of action for tortious discharge in violation of public policy also fails as a matter of law. Although Carmichael v. Alfano Temporary Personnel, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1126, 1132 (1991) held that when an employee’s public policy claims “are independent of FEHA” the FEHA statute of limitations does not apply where, as here, Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:268 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Under California law, an employee must exhaust the administrative remedies as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of a civil action for damages under the FEHA by filing an administrative complaint with the DFEH within one year from the date of the alleged unlawful practice and obtaining a right-to-sue notice. See CAL. GOV. CODE, § 12960(d); Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1718, 1724 (1994). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint clearly establishes that Plaintiff failed to meet this jurisdictional prerequisite. According to the allegations in her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s employment with BHCC was terminated on July 1, 2013 (see Amended Complaint ¶¶ 9, 11, 33). However, Plaintiff failed to file her administrative complaint with the DFEH until October 29, 2014, nearly sixteen months after the date of her termination. In the Complaint, Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion, with no facts or legal authority provided, that the treatment for Plaintiff’s medical condition extended the period for which she could file her charge with the DFEH. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 41). Defense counsel twice asked Plaintiff’s counsel for authority supporting the contention that Plaintiff’s medical treatment extended the one year deadline in which to file her charge. Boyce Decl., ¶ 2-3. Plaintiff’s counsel never provided any such authority and, in fact, no such authority exists. See Flores v. Flores, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6310, at *10-11, n. 3 (E.D. Cal. Jan 2015) (no authority for proposition that tolling doctrine extends to those seeking medical treatment or mental incapacity in civil cases). Plaintiff’s Complaint, on its face, establishes that Plaintiff failed to file her DFEH charge against Defendants within one year of her termination. Thus, her claim for employment discrimination is barred by the statute of limitations and should be dismissed. Plaintiff’s claims cite to the FEHA as the basis of the alleged public policy violations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s public policy claims are not independent of the FEHA and the one year statute of limitations to applies. Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:269 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. C. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Is Barred By The Exclusive Remedy Provision of the California Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim fails as a matter of law because it is preempted by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. The exclusive remedy provision of the California Workers’ Compensation Act bars Plaintiff’s negligent infliction claim because it preempts an employee’s tort claims arising out of the employment relationship. Cal. Labor Code § 3600 et seq.; Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protect. Dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 154 (1987); Greenwald v. Bohemian Club, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44055, at *20 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2008) (“[t]he clear majority of decisions have held that employee claims alleging negligent conduct of the employer are preempted by workers’ compensation. See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1086, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874, 824 P.2d 680 (1992)”); Smith v. Lowe’s Hiw, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist LEXIS 52671, at *14-15 (E.D. Cal. April 14, 2014) (“where the alleged unlawful conduct occurs at the worksite in the normal course of an employer- employee relationship, worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for any injury that results”); Livitsanos v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 744, 747 (1992) (“claims for […] negligent infliction of emotional distress are preempted by the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers’ compensation law”); Robomatic, Inc. v. Vetco Offshore, 225 Cal. App. 3d 270, 272 (1990) (“a workers' compensation proceeding is [plaintiff’s] exclusive remedy for negligent infliction of emotional distress ensuing from dismissal of employment.”) As recognized in Cole, conduct that is “a normal part of the employment relationship,” will be subject to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code. Id. at 160. An employee’s characterization of the conduct as unfair, outrageous and/or harassment will not rescue the claim from the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code. Id.; see also Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal. 3d 1 (1990). Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:270 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. In fact, California law does not recognize any claims based on negligence arising from the employment relationship. Both state and federal courts in California have consistently enforced this rule: Hine v. Dittrich, 228 Cal. App. 3d 59 (1991) (no claim for negligent supervision as a matter of law); Edwards v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 848 F. Supp. 1460, 1466 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (intentional conduct cannot be basis for negligent infliction of emotional distress claim); Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595, 1606 (1993) (providing any claim for mere negligence would be barred by workers’ compensation laws). Here, Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress merely incorporates by reference her claims for discrimination and tortious discharge. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 49.) Further, the Amended Complaint expressly states that the negligence claim is premised upon the “employment relationship of the parties.” (Amended Complaint, ¶ 50.) The conduct at issue is thus part of the normal employment relationship and is preempted by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. See, e.g., Grotz v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154874, at *28-32, fn.6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (granting defendant employer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for NIED with prejudice as preempted by workers’ compensation). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed with prejudice. D. Leave To Amend Would Be Futile And Should Be Denied. “Although there is a general rule that parties are allowed to amend their pleadings, it does not extend to cases in which any amendment would be an exercise in futility, . . . or where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal . . .” Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, Courts routinely deny a party leave to amend where the amendment is futile or subject to dismissal. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that a court may deny leave to amend where an amendment is futile); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538, 542 (9th Cir. Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:271 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 1989) (affirming trial court’s denial of leave to file a third amended complaint when claims sought to be added “[w]ere defective, and would have been subject to dismissal.”). Claims barred on statute of limitations grounds, such as Plaintiff’s discrimination and tortious charge claims, warrant dismissal without leave to amend because any attempt to do so would be futile. See Platt v. Electrical, 522 F. 3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal without leave to amend where dismissal was based on statute of limitations bar). Likewise, Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress fails as a matter of law based on clear case authority. There is nothing that Plaintiff could do to further amend her Complaint to properly plead a cause of action for negligent infliction. Accordingly, leave to amend should be denied. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first, fourth, and sixth causes of action to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff is time barred from filing her FEHA based claims and no amendment of the Amended Complaint would enable Plaintiff to overcome its legal deficiencies, the dismissal of these causes of action must be with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dated: July 25, 2016 /s/ Rachael Lavi SHANNON R. BOYCE RACHAEL LAVI LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS, LLC; AND LISA HENLEY Firmwide:141585385.2 050113.1030 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #:272 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com RACHAEL LAVI, Bar No. 294443 rlavi@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 310.553.5583 Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC; AND LISA HENLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY WEAVER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARCIE WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTER, LLC; LISA HENLEY; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER DECLARATION OF SHANNON BOYCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. AND BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FED. R. 12(B)(6) Date: August 22, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Room: 840 Trial Date: TBA Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-2 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:273 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-2 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:274 2 Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-3 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:275 3 Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-3 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:276 4 Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-3 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:277 5 Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-3 Filed 07/25/16 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:278 6 Exhibit A Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-3 Filed 07/25/16 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:279 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SHANNON R. BOYCE, Bar No. 229041 sboyce@littler.com RACHAEL LAVI, Bar No. 294443 rlavi@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 310.553.5583 Attorneys for Defendants BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC; AND LISA HENLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY WEAVER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARCIE WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTER, LLC; LISA HENLEY; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. AND BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN’S CENTERS LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FED. R. 12(B)(6) Date: August 22, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Room: 840 Trial Date: TBA Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-4 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:280 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 310.553.0308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER WHEREAS, Defendants Bright Horizons Children’s Centers LLC and Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Fed. R. 12(b)(6) came on regularly for hearing before this Court on August 22, 2016, the Honorable Dale S. Fischer presiding. The Court, having read and considered the papers submitted in support of the Motion, as well as the papers submitted in opposition to the Motion, and based upon the papers and pleadings on file in this matter and oral argument of the parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s First, Fourth and Sixth Causes of Action against Defendants are dismissed, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _____________ 2016 HON. DALE S. FISCHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Firmwide:141736320.1 050113.1030 Case 2:16-cv-05325-DSF-JPR Document 14-4 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:281