Neushul
Neushul v. Regents of the University of California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Olguin, J.
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to The Regents of the University of California’s (“defendant” or “Regents”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt.12, “Motion”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675 , 684 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001), and rules as follows.
INTRODUCTION
Cathy Neushul (“plaintiff’ or “Neushul”) filed this action against the Regents and two individuals on August 18, 2015. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at 1). Shortly thereafter, she filed her First Amended Complaint (Dkt.9, “FÁC”), naming only the Regents, and alleging causes of action for: (1) retaliation, Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (a); (2) gender discrimination, Cal. Gov.Code § 12940(a); (3) retaliation, Cal. Gov.Code § 12940(h); (4) violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5; and (5) denial of the right to inspect records, Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5 . (See id. at ¶¶ 62-71 ). On October 7, 2015, the Regents filed the…