Segura v. County of Santa Clara
- 5:25-cv-03130
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gerardo Segura v. County of Santa Clara, the court denied Clark’s motion but granted Lorenz and Sproul’s motions to dismiss Segura’s retaliation claims.
Gerardo Segura’s claims against Penese Clark may proceed past this motion to dismiss, while his claims against Paul Lorenz and Jill Sproul were dismissed without prejudice but without further leave to amend at this time.
What happened
Gerardo Segura v. County of Santa Clara concerns Segura’s claim that County employees retaliated against him for reporting safety violations at Valley Medical Center. He alleged that Penese Clark, Paul Lorenz, and Jill Sproul were involved in actions leading to his termination.
Clark argued that Segura still had not alleged any timely conduct by her. Lorenz and Sproul argued that Segura’s allegations that they approved, ratified, or failed to stop the retaliation were too general and relied on their supervisory positions.
The court denied Clark’s motion because Segura alleged specific conduct by her during the limitations period, but granted Lorenz and Sproul’s motions because the allegations against them were conclusory. The court, whose judge’s name is unclear in the provided text, dismissed those claims without prejudice but without further leave to amend at this time.
The detailed version
- Segura v. County of Santa Clara · No. 5:25-cv-03130
- Sept. 15, 2026
Background
Gerardo Segura sued the County of Santa Clara and employees of the County’s Valley Medical Center, alleging that they fired him in retaliation for reporting safety violations at the hospital. The second amended complaint asserted a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Penese Clark, Paul Lorenz, and Jill Sproul.
In an earlier order, the court dismissed the claims against all three individuals as untimely because Segura had not identified conduct by them on or after April 7, 2023. Segura filed a second amended complaint adding allegations about their conduct.
Segura alleged that Clark participated in interviews from January through October 2023 as part of a retaliatory investigation, helped create a stated reason for placing him on leave, and participated in recommending his termination on August 9, 2024. He alleged that Lorenz and Sproul knew about, approved, or ratified those actions and failed to intervene.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may seek dismissal when a complaint does not provide enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. The court must generally accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but it need not accept legal conclusions or unsupported, conclusory statements.
Clark’s motion
Clark argued that Segura still had not alleged any conduct by her within the limitations period. The court disagreed. It found that the allegations about Clark’s interviews through October 2023 and her involvement in the August 9, 2024 termination recommendation addressed the defect identified in the earlier complaint.
The court also rejected Clark’s argument that the complaint improperly grouped defendants together. It concluded that the allegations gave Clark fair notice of the conduct attributed to her because the complaint alleged that she and other managers participated in collective decision-making about Segura’s treatment and termination.
The court denied Clark’s motion to dismiss.
Lorenz and Sproul’s motions
The court found that Segura’s new allegations against Lorenz and Sproul were limited to assertions that they knew about Segura’s mistreatment, approved or ratified adverse actions, or failed to intervene. The court held that these allegations were overly conclusory and relied on their supervisory positions without providing specific supporting facts.
The court therefore granted Lorenz’s and Sproul’s motions to dismiss. The dismissal of Segura’s claims against them was without prejudice but without further leave to amend at that time. The order stated that, if discovery provided a factual basis, Segura could seek permission to reassert a claim against either Lorenz or Sproul.
Disposition
The court granted Lorenz’s and Sproul’s motions to dismiss and denied Clark’s motion. The judge’s name is not fully legible in the provided opinion text.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.