Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva alleged that Alameda Health System terminated her employment after she raised concerns about her employee status, unpaid shift differentials, overtime, work breaks, and union affiliation. She later filed retaliation and wage claims with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, a division of the California Department of Industrial Relations. The division determined that Alameda Health System terminated her for a nondiscriminatory reason and that she had not shown that reason was a pretext.

Drevaleva’s federal complaint asserted unlawful-termination claims under the Constitution, several federal statutes, and state law against Alameda Health System. She also asserted similar claims against the Department of Industrial Relations based on the labor division’s adjudication of her claims.

Request to Disqualify the Judge

Drevaleva sought to disqualify Judge Chen under 28 U.S.C. § 144. She relied on his prior rulings against her, her speculation that he had improper communications with an unidentified person who filed the labor division’s motion, and her suspicion that someone may have bribed him.

The court held that prior unfavorable rulings do not establish disqualifying bias, and that speculation and unsupported suspicions were legally insufficient. The court therefore denied Drevaleva’s affidavit of bias and prejudice.

Motion to Dismiss Concerning the Department of Industrial Relations

The labor division moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because the Eleventh Amendment protects a state and its agencies from suits in federal court when the state has not waived that protection. The court determined that the labor division was a state agency within the Department of Industrial Relations and that California had not waived its immunity for this lawsuit. Because that ground resolved the motion, the court did not address the labor division’s other arguments.

The court also rejected Drevaleva’s procedural objections to the motion, including objections concerning the electronic signature, counsel’s notice of appearance, and the absence of supporting affidavits or declarations.

The court granted the labor division’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It concluded that Drevaleva had previously been given opportunities to plead claims arising from the same operative facts and that the complaint could not be cured by alleging additional facts.

Request for Entry of Default

Drevaleva asked the Clerk to enter default against the Department of Industrial Relations, arguing that it had not defended the lawsuit. The court determined that the Department should be treated as having appeared through its labor division. The court also stated that the Department would have the same Eleventh Amendment immunity as the labor division. The court denied the request for entry of default.

Motion to Dismiss Concerning Alameda Health System

Alameda Health System moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, expiration of the statute of limitations, and claim preclusion, and alternatively sought a more definite statement. The court granted the motion without leave to amend.

The court concluded that Drevaleva had not established federal-question jurisdiction over her federal claims. It found that several cited statutes did not apply based on the allegations pleaded. It also stated that her constitutional and civil-rights claims based on alleged race and national-origin discrimination failed at least because, by her own admission, Alameda Health System was a private employer rather than a state actor. The court further found that her racketeering, involuntary-servitude, and cruel-and-unusual-punishment theories were facially invalid or frivolous based on the allegations in the complaint.

The court also applied claim preclusion, which bars later litigation of claims that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier action when the parties, claims, and final judgment requirements are met. It found that Drevaleva and Alameda Health System were the same parties involved in an earlier state-court action, that both cases concerned her termination, and that the earlier action had ended in a judgment on the merits. The court concluded that the claims in this case were therefore barred, including claims that could have been raised earlier.

Other Motions and Disposition

Because the court granted the dismissal motions without leave to amend, it denied as moot Drevaleva’s motions to extend the deadline to amend the complaint, extend the deadline to serve Alameda Health System, relate cases, and serve the California Secretary of State. The court instructed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

The opinion’s conclusion lists Docket No. 53 among the matters disposed of, although the earlier list of pending motions identifies Docket No. 57 for the motion concerning service on the California Secretary of State.