# Poole v. Garland

> District Court, N.D. California · October 15, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069314

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 15, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069314

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 KAIRE POOLE,
Case No. 20-cv-09379-PJH
8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
10 MERRICK B. GARLAND,
Re: Dkt. No. 27
11 Defendant.
12

13
14 Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) came
15 on for hearing before this court on October 14, 2021. Plaintiff appeared through her
16 counsel, Michael Hawbecker. Defendant appeared through his counsel, Kenneth
17 Brakebill. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their
18 arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby
19 GRANTS defendant’s motion, for the reasons stated at the hearing.
20 As noted at the hearing, “Title VII provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims
21 of discrimination in federal employment.” McGee v. Dejoy, 821 F.App’x 860, 861 (9th Cir.
22 2020) (citing White v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 652 F.2d 913, 916-17 (9th Cir. 1981)); see
23 also Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 824 (1976). This case involves
24 allegations of racial discrimination in federal employment. Therefore, the claims,
25 currently pleaded as violations of Title 42 U.S.C. §1981, must be re-pleaded under Title
26 VII. The court grants plaintiff leave to amend her first and second claims for hostile
27 environment and disparate treatment. In the third amended complaint, the allegations of
1 header “adverse employment actions/disparate treatment of plaintiff.” Defendant has
2 properly grouped the factual allegations found in this section of the SAC into 6
3 categories, to which the court has added a seventh. Dkt. 26 ¶¶ 72-107. Plaintiff’s third
4 claim for retaliation is dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s continued failure to
5 plead facts establishing a causal nexus between her prior protected activity and the
6 conduct at issue in this lawsuit.
7 Plaintiff may file her amended complaint, complying with the guidance given on the
8 record, within 28 days of the date of this order. Defendant may respond within 28 days
9 following plaintiff’s filing.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated: October 15, 2021
12 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
13 United States District Judge

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069314. Public record. Not legal advice.