Nghiem v. Santa Clara University
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-06872
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Nghiem v. Santa Clara University, Judge Freeman denied leave to seek reconsideration or interlocutory appeal and ordered the case to remain stayed.
Peter P. Nghiem’s requests to revisit the prior dismissal of his defamation claims against Grace Ling and Santa Clara University, or to obtain an immediate appeal, were denied; the case remains stayed.
What happened
Nghiem v. Santa Clara University concerns Peter P. Nghiem’s claims that Santa Clara University and other defendants harassed and defamed him because of his age and race, affecting his promotion and courses. The court had previously dismissed his defamation claims against Grace Ling and the university but allowed his California Fair Employment and Housing Act claim to continue.
Nghiem asked for permission to seek reconsideration of the defamation ruling or to appeal it before the case ended. He argued that the court had overlooked facts and legal arguments about Ling’s statements, including whether they were false and whether opinions could imply facts.
Judge Freeman denied both requests. She concluded that Nghiem had not shown the required failure to consider important facts or legal arguments, and he did not show that the requirements for an immediate appeal were met. The case remains stayed.
The detailed version
- Nghiem v. Santa Clara University · No. 5:21-cv-06872
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 25, 2022
Background
Peter P. Nghiem, a Quarterly Adjunct Lecturer at Santa Clara University, sued Santa Clara University, Nam Ling, Grace Ling, and Jeremy Kemp. He alleged that the defendants engaged in harassment and defamation as a pretext to discriminate against him because of his age and race during 2019 and 2020. He also alleged that the conduct led to his failure to be promoted and the cancellation of courses he taught, including because he reported the defendants’ conduct. As to Grace Ling, he alleged that she posted defamatory course reviews about him.
A prior order dismissed Nghiem’s defamation claims against Grace Ling and Santa Clara University, with the university claim based on the claim against Ling. The court concluded that Ling’s course evaluations were statements of opinion rather than plausibly intentional publications of statements of fact. The prior order did not dismiss Nghiem’s claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Motion for reconsideration
Nghiem sought leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) to file a motion for reconsideration. That rule required him to show a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before the earlier order.
Nghiem argued that the court had overlooked the difference between Santa Clara University’s course evaluations and the public website RateMyProfessors.com; facts and evidence concerning the alleged falsity of Ling’s statements; and arguments about opinions that imply or assert objective facts.
The court found that Nghiem had not shown a manifest failure to consider the relevant facts or arguments. It stated that the lack of affiliation between the university and RateMyProfessors.com did not change its conclusion that the statements were opinions. It also explained that, because the course evaluations were opinions, they could not plausibly be considered false. Finally, the court stated that Nghiem had not shown how the cited cases applied to Ling’s statements. The court therefore denied Nghiem’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Interlocutory appeal
Nghiem also sought leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal before the case is finished. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that would materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court stated that Nghiem had not attempted to show that any of those statutory requirements was satisfied. It therefore denied his motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that: (1) the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied; (2) the motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal is denied; and (3) the case shall remain stayed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.