Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Edward C. LUCK, Ph.D, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO; Ami Carpenter, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff-Appellant Edward C. Luck appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees University of San Diego (USD) and Ami Carpenter on six claims: intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligence, defamation, and failure to pay wages (violation of California Labor Code § 201). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
On appeal, Dr. Luck argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on each of these claims because he established triable questions of material fact warranting a trial. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court properly applied the summary judgment standard. There is no evidence that statements made to Dr. Luck as to the nature of his employment with the school were false, that USD knew the statements were false, or that they were made with the intent to deceive Dr. Luck into accepting the Kroc school deanship and a professorship at the time they were made. See Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 835, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Indeed, at the outset Dr. Luck was able to develop a vision statement and implement significant changes to financial and administrative processes. Aplt. Br. at 9–10, 27. Furthermore, no academic administrator could reasonably expect to operate with complete independence from the faculty and the University administration. Statements concerning Dr. Luck's position within the university were not false; Dr. Luck was both a dean and full tenured professor upon hire.
Dr. Luck's negligence claim fails because he voluntarily resigned from his position. Accordingly, he cannot prove that the alleged negligent hiring of the investigator or releasing of the investigator's report was the proximate cause of his damages. Dr. Carpenter's filing of the gender discrimination complaint was not malicious because it was couched in terms of opinion and was supported by factual allegations Dr. Luck does not challenge. See Ruiz v. Harbor View Cmty. Assn., 134 Cal. App. 4th 1456, 1471, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133, 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). Dr. Carpenter's statements at the all-school meeting were not false, as corroborated in the affidavits submitted by Dr. Carpenter's colleagues, and so cannot be defamatory. Finally, because Dr. Luck did not work after he resigned, he did not “earn” any wages and is therefore not entitled to any back pay. See Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 4th 77, 92, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 137 P.3d 218, 228(Cal. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-55276
Decided: January 08, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)