Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Docket Nos. 15, 18. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Kamree Miller has filed suit against two CHP officers, both in their individual and official capacities: (1) Officer Frank Meranda and (2) Sgt. Keerat Lal (Officer Meranda's supervisor). The claims she has asserted against the CHP officers relate to alleged sexual harassment by Officer Meranda. Currently pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by each officer. The
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Docket Nos. 15, 18. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff Kamree Miller has filed suit against two CHP officers, both in their individual and official capacities: (1) Officer Frank Meranda and (2) Sgt. Keerat Lal (Officer Meranda's supervisor). The claims she has asserted against the CHP officers relate to alleged sexual harassment by Officer Meranda. Currently pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by each officer. The C..
More
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Docket Nos. 15, 18.
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Kamree Miller has filed suit against two CHP officers, both in their individual and official capacities: (1) Officer Frank Meranda and (2) Sgt. Keerat Lal (Officer Meranda's supervisor). The claims she has asserted against the CHP officers relate to alleged sexual harassment by Officer Meranda. Currently pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one filed by each officer. The Court held a hearing on the motions on February 28, 2019. At the hearing, Ms. Miller made representations about the sexual harassment that are not contained in her complaint. In light of those representations, the Court finds that the most efficient way of proceeding is as follows.
1. Ms. Miller has leave to file a first amended complaint ("FAC"). More specifically, Ms. Miller has leave to amend so that (a) she may make additional factual allegations to support her position that Officer Meranda acted "under color of state law" and (b) she may make additional factual allegations as to how long the "lull" in the harassment was (i.e., after Officer Meranda allegedly eased off in his harassment following the January 2015 email but then picked up in the harassment in December 2016). No other amendments (factual or legal) are permitted.
2. Although the Court is Allowing Ms. Miller to file a. FAC, it is not denying Defendants' motions to dismiss on the merits. The Court shall apply all arguments in the motions to dismiss to the FAC.
3. Ms. Miller shall file the FAC within two weeks of the date of this order. At the same time, Ms. Miller shall file a supplemental brief addressing why the new factual allegations (a) establish that Officer Meranda acted "under color of state law" and (b) support a continuing violations theory.
4. Within three weeks of the date of this order, Defendants shall file supplemental briefs addressing the same two issues.
5. Each party's supplemental brief shall be no longer than seven (7) pages.
6. After receiving the supplemental briefing, the Court shall evaluate the FAC based on the original briefing on the motions to dismiss and on the supplemental briefs ordered herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
