Flinders v. Supreme Court CA6

Filed 3/17/23 Flinders v. Supreme Court CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
MATTHEW FLINDERS, H050203
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 21CV391711)
v.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Matthew Flinders sued respondent Supreme Court of California
(SCOCA) and the justices serving on SCOCA 1 after he did not pass the attorneys’ bar
examination in both 2019 and 2020. He claimed that the examination, and programs
implemented thereafter by the State Bar of California (the State Bar), wrongfully
discriminated against him on the basis of his age. SCOCA demurred to his complaint,
and the superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Flinders appeals from the judgment of dismissal. He challenges the superior
court’s conclusions that it lacked jurisdiction, that SCOCA is immune from tort liability
to Flinders, and that his complaint failed to allege viable causes of action. He also
challenges the superior court’s denial of his stay motion and its award of costs to
1 We will generally refer to SCOCA and its justices collectively as SCOCA.
SCOCA. We conclude that the superior court properly entered judgment against
Flinders. We decide that SCOCA is immune under the Government Claims Act from
Flinders’s common law tort causes of action for damages and his prayer for other relief
lacked any legal relationship to his causes of action. We also reject Flinders’s challenges
to the denial of his stay motion and to the award of costs. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment.
I. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
Flinders’s complaint alleges that he is over the age of 50 and was licensed to
practice law in Massachusetts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
He moved to California in 2018 and took a job that required him to become a member of
the State Bar. He alleges that the State Bar has stated that the California Bar
Examination tests “ ‘minimum competence’ ” expected of an “ ‘entry level position.’ ”
(See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6046.8 [the State Bar is obligated to ensure that the California
Bar Examination “properly tests for minimally needed competence for entry-level
attorneys”].)
In July 2019, he took the California Attorneys’ Bar Examination, which is
available only to those who are licensed to practice law in other jurisdictions. (See Bus.
& Prof. Code, § 6062, subd. (a)(3).) He did not pass. In February 2020, he again took
this examination. Again, he did not pass. Flinders paid a substantial fee to the State Bar
to take these examinations, and he also spent many hours on and incurred costs for bar
preparation and tutoring courses that he undertook to prepare for taking the examinations.
Flinders learned of his second failure on May 8, 2020. He alleges that the “general public
received notice” of his failures. Because he had not become a member of the State Bar,
his employer terminated his employment.
Soon after he learned of his second failure, Flinders requested records of passage
rates from the State Bar, and he received those records on July 7, 2020. Flinders alleges
that passage rates for the California State Bar Examination are “closely correlated with
2
examinee age,” and younger examinees pass the examination at much higher rates than
older examinees. He alleges that SCOCA knowingly and intentionally “caused” the
examination “to be unlawfully discriminatory” against older examinees. He also alleges
that SCOCA failed to disclose “the extreme and unlawful discriminatory impact” of the
examination on older examinees. Flinders alleges that the passage rates reflect that the
State Bar did not apply the “MBE Scaling process” that it describes on its Web site. He
maintains that the examinations he took “were scored utilizing an arbitrary and
unreasonable measure of manual dexterity that overwhelmingly favored younger
examinees over older examinees in protected age categories, and that had no reasonable
or legitimate relationship to an assessment of ‘minimum competence to practice law as an
entry level attorney.’ ”
The State Bar subsequently implemented two new programs (the “Cut Score
Program” and the “New Graduate Program”) designed to assist some examinees who had
not passed examinations. The “Cut Score Program” altered the passing score for
examinees. The “New Graduate Program” permitted provisional licensure for some new
law school graduates. Flinders alleges that these two programs also discriminated against
older examinees.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Flinders filed his complaint, containing seven common law tort causes of action,
in November 2021. He alleged that he had made a written claim for damages from
SCOCA in May 2021.
His interference with contractual relations cause of action alleged that SCOCA
had interfered with two different contracts: His employment contract with the law firm
that employed him, and his contract with the State Bar, under which he paid fees to take
the examinations. He alleged that the scoring of the examinations was done in a manner
that discriminated based on age and thereby interfered with these contracts. His
interference with prospective economic advantage cause of action similarly alleged that
3
the discriminatory scoring of the examinations and the State Bar’s discriminatory
programs interfered with his employment prospects.
Flinders’s fraud cause of action alleged that the representation that the
examination measured “ ‘minimum competence’ ” was false. His “false light
defamation” cause of action alleged that, by representing that the examination measured
minimum competence, SCOCA impliedly and falsely represented that he lacked such
minimum competence.
His intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action alleged that
SCOCA’s discriminatory and fraudulent conduct was “extreme and outrageous.” His
negligent supervision cause of action alleged that SCOCA had failed to properly
supervise the State Bar’s administration of the examinations and programs. Finally, his
negligence cause of action alleged that SCOCA had breached its duty to administrate the
examinations and programs in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Flinders sought damages and “order[s]” requiring SCOCA to rescore the two
examinations Flinders took and to require the administration of future examinations to
comply with the State Bar’s “contractual and other legal obligations to future
examinees.” Flinders’s prayer for relief also sought non-specific “[r]estitutionary and
non-restitutionary disgorgement” and punitive damages.
SCOCA demurred to the complaint on numerous grounds. It asserted that (1) the
superior court lacked jurisdiction because SCOCA “has ‘sole original jurisdiction’ over
the attorney admissions process,” (2) SCOCA was immune under the doctrines of judicial
and legislative immunity, (3) SCOCA was immune from a damages award under the
Government Claims Act, (4) Flinders had failed to allege that he had timely presented his
claim, and (5) his complaint failed to state any causes of action.
4
Flinders sought a stay of his action pending resolution of his Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) actions against SCOCA and the State Bar.2 The
superior court, noting that the EEOC had not filed any actions based on its investigations,
declined to stay this action.
The superior court agreed with all of SCOCA’s arguments and sustained
SCOCA’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court subsequently entered a judgment
dismissing Flinders’s action with prejudice and awarding SCOCA its costs. Flinders
timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
III. DISCUSSION
Our standard of review is well established. “In reviewing a ruling sustaining a
demurrer without leave to amend, we assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual
allegations and the matters properly subject to judicial notice.” (Committee for Sound
Water & Land Development v. City of Seaside (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 389, 393–394.)
“Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its
parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether
the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when
it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility
that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its
discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm.
[Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the
plaintiff.”3 (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
2 Flinders has not included his stay motion in the appellate record.
3 Flinders does not make any assertion that he could amend his complaint to cure
its flaws.
5
A. The Government Claims Act Precludes Damages Liability
Flinders’s complaint names as defendants the “Supreme Court of California” and
individual justices of SCOCA.4 Our Supreme Court has described the attorney admission
process in California: “The State Bar is a ‘public corporation’ of which every person
licensed to practice law in the state is a member. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 9.) The State
Bar serves ‘as an administrative arm of [the California Supreme Court] for the purpose of
assisting in matters of admission and discipline of attorneys.’ [Citation.] The State Bar’s
Committee of Bar Examiners administers the requirements for admission to the bar,
including the bar examination and the assessment of applicants’ moral character, and
certifies to [the California Supreme Court] those applicants who satisfy the requirements.
[Citation.] (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 6046, 6064.) [The California Supreme Court] has the
sole authority to grant or deny admission to practice law, but it accords great deference to
the recommendation of the State Bar.” (Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58
Cal.4th 300, 304–305 (Sander).)
Flinders contends that the Government Claims Act does not preclude his causes of
action for damages because Government Code section 815.65 provides for liability in this
case. SCOCA, on the other hand, asserts that section 815 precludes it from being held
liable to Flinders for any of his causes of action for damages.
The Government Claims Act applies to both SCOCA and the individual justices
who serve on it. (§§ 810.2, 900.3.) Section 815 provides: “Except as otherwise
provided by statute: [¶] (a) A public entity [including SCOCA] is not liable for an
injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public
employee or any other person.” (§ 815.) “A public entity is not liable for an injury
4Flinders also names as Doe defendants, “staff attorneys, agents, and
administrators” of SCOCA “who partook in facilitating the conduct” set forth in the
complaint, but those defendants are not before us in this appeal.
5 Unspecified statutory references are to the Government Code.
6
caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to
issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar
authorization where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by
enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied,
suspended or revoked.” (§ 818.4.) SCOCA is the sole entity authorized to determine
whether a person should be licensed to practice law in California. (Sander, supra, 58
Cal.4th at p. 305; Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287, 300 (Brotsky).)
Although sections 815 and 818.4 appear to preclude SCOCA from being held
liable for any injury caused by SCOCA’s denial of a license to Flinders, Flinders claims
that section 815.6 permits liability in this case. Section 815.6 provides: “Where a public
entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect
against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of
that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity
establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.” (§ 815.6, italics
added.)
Flinders contends that SCOCA was under a “ ‘mandatory duty’ ” under
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) “as an employer of attorneys and as a
‘licensing board’ by way of” the State Bar. His theory is that the FEHA and the ADEA
“make it unlawful” for SCOCA “to discriminate” on the basis of age and thereby, in his
view, “clearly impose[] a ‘mandatory’ duty” on SCOCA to refrain from age
discrimination.
The only “enactment[s]” identified in Flinders’s complaint as any basis for his
“ ‘mandatory’ duty” argument are section 12944, a provision of FEHA, and 29 Code of
Federal Regulations sections 1625.6(c) and 1625.2, which are ADEA regulations. His
appellate briefs refer only to section 12944 specifically and make only nonspecific
references to the ADEA. As he fails to identify any specific mandatory duty the ADEA
7
imposes on SCOCA, we decide that Flinders has abandoned on appeal any argument
concerning the ADEA.
Flinders asserts that section 12944 imposes a mandatory duty on SCOCA, such
that it may be liable under section 815.6 for the injuries he allegedly suffered . “The first
element of liability under Government Code section 815.6 requires that ‘ “the enactment
at issue be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in its directions to
the public entity; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular
action be taken or not taken. [Citation.] It is not enough, moreover, that the public entity
or officer have been under an obligation to perform a function if the function itself
involves the exercise of discretion. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Courts have construed this
first prong rather strictly, finding a mandatory duty only if the enactment “affirmatively
imposes the duty and provides implementing guidelines.” ’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘ “Whether a
particular statute is intended to impose a mandatory duty, rather than a mere obligation to
perform a discretionary function, is a question of statutory interpretation for the courts.”
[Citations.] We examine the “language, function and apparent purpose” of each cited
enactment “to determine if any or each creates a mandatory duty designed to protect
against” the injury allegedly suffered by plaintiff.’ ” (B.H. v. County of San
Bernardino (2015) 62 Cal.4th 168, 180–181.)
Section 12944 provides: “It shall be unlawful for a licensing board to require any
examination or establish any other qualification for licensing that has an adverse impact
on any class by virtue of its race, creed, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, gender,
gender identity, gender expression, age, medical condition, genetic information, physical
disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, or sexual orientation,
unless the practice can be demonstrated to be job related.” (§ 12944, subd. (a), italics
added.)
All of Flinders’s causes of action arise from the State Bar’s administration of the
procedures for gaining admission to practice law in California. His interference causes of
8
action challenge the State Bar’s method of scoring the examinations, and his fraud and
defamation causes of action challenge the State Bar’s characterization of what the
examinations measure. His remaining causes of action are entirely derivative of these
challenges.
Section 12944 does not apply to the State Bar’s procedures, such as the
administration of examinations and programs, for facilitating admission to practice law in
California. “No law of this state restricting, or prescribing a mode of procedure for the
exercise of powers of state public bodies or state agencies, or classes thereof, including,
but not by way of limitation, the provisions contained in Division 3 (commencing with
Section 11000) [which include section 12944], Division 4 (commencing with Section
16100), and Part 1 (commencing with Section 18000) and Part 2 (commencing with
Section 18500) of Division 5, of Title 2 of the Government Code, shall be applicable to
the State Bar, unless the Legislature expressly so declares.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6001.)
Since the Legislature has not expressly provided that section 12944 applies to the State
Bar, it does not. (See Kohn v. State Bar of California (N.D. Cal. 2020) 497 F.Supp.3d
526, 538–539 & fn. 4.)
Moreover, section 12944 does not by its terms apply to SCOCA. Section 12944
expressly limits its provisions to a “licensing board,” which it defines as “any state board,
agency, or authority in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency [(BCHA)]
that has the authority to grant licenses or certificates which are prerequisites to
employment eligibility or professional status.”6 (§ 12944, subd. (f).) Flinders concedes
that SCOCA is not an “authority in the [BCHA].” While SCOCA has the authority to
grant a license to practice law, Flinders has failed to allege or provide any legal basis for
6 Even if the State Bar were not exempted from section 12944, that statute still
would not apply to the State Bar because it lacks the authority to grant a license to
practice law. “The State Bar has no power to admit persons to practice law. On the
contrary, its failure or refusal to certify is specifically made reviewable” by SCOCA.
(Brotsky, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 300.)
9
a conclusion that SCOCA itself is a state board or agency within the meaning of section
12944.
Even if section 12944 did apply to SCOCA, the statute does not create a
“mandatory duty” within the meaning of section 815.6. “In order for Government Code
section 815.6 to be applicable, the enactment relied upon must impose a mandatory duty,
not a discretionary duty; neither must the enactment simply set forth a prohibition or a
right, as opposed to an affirmative duty on the part of a government agency to perform
some act.” (Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School Dist. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
1224, 1239.) Section 12944 merely sets forth a prohibition, not an affirmative duty to
perform a certain act. For these reasons, we reject Flinders’s assertion that section 815.6
applies to the causes of action he alleges.
Flinders contends that, at the very least, the Government Claims Act does not
apply to his defamation or fraud causes of action because section 822.2 makes SCOCA
liable. We disagree.
“A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by misrepresentation by an
employee of the public entity, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or
intentional.” (§ 818.8.) “A public employee acting in the scope of his employment is not
liable for an injury caused by his misrepresentation, whether or not such
misrepresentation be negligent or intentional, unless he is guilty of actual fraud,
corruption or actual malice.” (§ 822.2.) Thus, a public entity is not liable for an
employee’s intentional misrepresentation, though its employee may be liable for fraud if
the employee is “guilty of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.” (Ibid.)
Flinders argues that section 822.2 applies here even though he denies that he seeks
to hold SCOCA liable for any misrepresentations of its employees. We reject this
contention because his complaint does not bring section 822.2 into play as it lacks any
specific allegations of “actual fraud.” (§ 822.2.) “[C]onclusory allegations” will not
bring a fraud cause of action against a public entity within section 822.2. (Curcini v.
10
County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 629, 649.) He alleged that SCOCA
“willfully and intentionally engaged in fraud and deceit as defined by California Civil
Code §[§] 1709-1710 [(which define deceit)]” and made “knowingly false”
representations “with the intent to deceive” “while knowing and concealing” the truth.
His defamation cause of action alleged that SCOCA’s representations were “false,”
“fraudulent,” and “offensive.” These conclusory allegations, which did no more than
skeletally allege fraud and defamation, were inadequate to bring his causes of action
within the “actual fraud” exception set forth in section 822.2.
We decide that Flinders failed to allege any causes of action for damages that were
not precluded by the Government Claims Act.
B. Non-Damages Relief
The prayer at the end of Flinders’s complaint sought not only damages but also
“order[s]” requiring SCOCA to rescore the two examinations Flinders took and to require
the administration of future examinations to comply with the State Bar’s “contractual and
other legal obligations to future examinees.” It also sought “[r]estitutionary and non-
restitutionary disgorgement.” All of Flinders’s causes of action were common law torts.
Nowhere in his complaint were there any allegations of any legal basis for injunctive
relief or “disgorgement.” As Flinders makes no effort on appeal to explain how he could
be entitled to any nondamages relief on any of the causes of action that he pleaded in his
complaint, he has not shown that the superior court erred in sustaining the demurrer as to
any claims for nondamages relief.
C. Stay Motion
Flinders asserts that the superior court abused its discretion in denying his stay
motion. He has not included his motion in the appellate record. “It is well settled, of
course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by
an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) “It is appellant’s
burden to demonstrate error by an adequate record [citation], and without an adequate
11
record we must assume facts in support of the trial court’s order.” (Vermeulen v.
Superior Court (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1198–1199.) Here, we must assume that
the superior court had an adequate factual basis for its denial of Flinders’s stay motion. 7
Therefore, Flinders has not met his burden on appeal of demonstrating prejudicial error.
D. Costs
Flinders challenges the superior court’s costs award to SCOCA. He maintains that
a costs award was precluded because his causes of action were intertwined with FEHA
causes of action. Flinders did not allege any FEHA causes of action, and thus his
argument concerning costs lacks merit.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear their
own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
7SCOCA seeks judicial notice of a right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC, before
the superior court ruled on Flinders’s stay motion. We deny this request as the document
is unnecessary to our resolution of this issue.
12
______________________________________
Danner, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
____________________________________
Wilson, J.
H050203
Flinders v. Supreme Court of California