Opinion

Rich-Banales

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Oct 6, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.9%

“On the facts presented here, the [c]ourt concludes that 8 communications to the mediator and communications between parties during the mediation are 9 protected.”

How later courts described this case

  • “On the facts presented here, the [c]ourt concludes that 8 communications to the mediator and communications between parties during the mediation are 9 protected.”
  • “[T]he mediation privilege adopted 19 today applies only to information disclosed in conjunction with mediation proceedings with a 20 neutral.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SHARON S. CHAND, No. 2:23-cv-01583-DC-SCR (PS)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 LORI LYNN RICH-BANALES, et al.,

(Doc Nos. 5, 15)

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. The matter was referred to a United States

18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19 On December 9, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20 recommending that the court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fair Employment

21 and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims against all Defendants, Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C § 1981 claims

22 against Defendants Jennifer Lynn Crick and Lori Lynn Rich-Banales, Plaintiff’s § 1981 hostile

23 work environment and non-employment-based claims against Defendants Philip J. Bonnet and

24 Alta California Regional Center (“ACRC”), and all claims against Defendant ACRC, Board of

25 Directors. (Doc. No. 15.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on all parties

26 and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were

27 to be filed within fourteen days. (Id. at 29–30.) On December 23, 2024, Defendants filed

28 objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 16.)

1 In their objections, Defendants argue, in part, that the magistrate judge erred in finding no

2 mediation privilege applies to statements made by Defendant Bonnet and a mediator during a

3 mediation with Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 16 at 17–21.) Defendants argue that the federal mediation

4 privilege adopted by Folb v. Motion Picture Indus. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164

5 (C.D. Cal. 1998) applies in this case. (Id.) In Folb, the district court articulated a federal common

6 law mediation privilege, prohibiting the use of information exchanged during mediation. See

7 Folb, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1180 (“On the facts presented here, the [c]ourt concludes that

8 communications to the mediator and communications between parties during the mediation are

9 protected.”). Defendants further argue that under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, the court should

10 look to the mediation privilege provided by California state law. (Id.) Specifically, Defendants

11 argue the mediation privilege provided by California Evidence Code section 1119 applies. (Id.)

12 California Evidence Code section 1119 provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any

13 admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation

14 consultation is admissible or subject to discovery” and “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or

15 settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation or a mediation

16 consultation shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119.

17 The mediation privilege adopted in Folb applies only to a formal mediation proceeding

18 before a neutral mediator. See Folb, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 1180 (“[T]he mediation privilege adopted

19 today applies only to information disclosed in conjunction with mediation proceedings with a

20 neutral.”) Likewise, California Evidence Code section 1119 applies to mediations with a “neutral

21 person.” See Cal. Evid. Code § 1115. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the mediation at issue was not

22 before a neutral mediator. (See Doc. No. 4 at 11.) Therefore, the court concludes that Defendants’

23 objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and

24 recommendations.

25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

26 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

27 including Defendants’ objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

28 supported by the record and by proper analysis.

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 15) are

3 ADOPTED in full;

4 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

5 part as follows:

6 a. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ACRC, Board of

7 Directors without leave to amend;

8 b. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)

9 claims against all Defendants with leave to amend;

10 c. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against Defendants

11 Jennifer Lynn Crick and Lori Lynn Rich-Banales with leave to amend;

12 d. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 hostile work environment claim

13 against Defendants Philip J. Bonnet and ACRC with leave to amend;

14 e. GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 non-employment-based claim

15 against Defendants Philip J. Bonnet and ACRC with leave to amend;

16 f. DENIED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claim against

17 Defendants Philip J. Bonnet and ACRC with leave to amend;

18 g. DENIED as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 constructive discharge claim

19 against Defendants Philip J. Bonnet and ACRC with leave to amend;

20 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second

21 amended complaint, or alternatively, file a notice of her intent to proceed with the

22 remaining claims in her first amended complaint; and

23 /////

24 /////

25 /////

26 /////

27 /////

28 /////

1 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

2 proceedings.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. □

5 | Dated: _ October 3, 2025 EIU os

Dena Coggins

6 United States District Judge

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.