Beddingfield v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITY BEDDINGFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-05896-EMC
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
Docket No. 68, 69
Before the Court are motions to dismiss by individual defendants Renee Rea and Omar
Parra. Dkt. Nos. 68, 69.1 The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual background
and claims.
The Court previously granted these defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend as
to Plaintiff’s FEHA and UCL claims. Dkt. No. 65. Regarding the FEHA claim, the Court
explained that to sue defendants Rea and Parra in their individual capacities, Plaintiff must show
that these employees personally engaged in harassment of Plaintiff. Id. at 6. The Court reviewed
the scant allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint relating to conduct of these specific individual
defendants and found such allegations insufficient to state a claim.
On February 4, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC). Dkt. No. 66. The SAC
repeats verbatim Plaintiff’s prior factual allegations against Defendants Parra and Rea. The only
change to the complaint that the Court can identify is in the section describing the parties:
1 Defendant Rea was erroneously sued as “Rene Reyes.” Plaintiff declined to correct this mistake
in her amended filing.
Case 3:23-cv-05896-EMC Document 73 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
FAC SAC
17. United Parcel Service, Inc. agents,
including but not limited to, Managers Aimee/
Amy Vice and Jeffrey Davies, “Omar,” Ryan
Perrault, Rene Reyes all harassed Plaintiff and
are residents of California.
17. Defendant Omar Parra was at all relevant
times a managerial employee of UPS who
exercised authority over Plaintiff, including
transfers, assignments, discipline, and
workplace conditions.
18. Defendant Rene Reyes was at all relevant
times a supervisory employee of UPS who
exercised authority over Plaintiff and
participated in or failed to prevent unlawful
harassment and retaliation.
19. At all relevant times, Defendants Perrault
and Reyes acted within the course and scope
of their employment and as agents of UPS.
20. United Parcel Service, Inc. agents,
including but not limited to, Managers Aimee/
Amy Vice and Jeffrey Davies, Rene Reyes all
harassed Plaintiff and are residents of
California.
Defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss on February 18, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 68, 69.
Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition. Dkt. Nos. 70, 71. On March 11, a week after Plaintiff’s
opposition was due, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to submit a late response. Dkt. No. 72.
Plaintiff’s counsel blamed a new employee at counsel’s firm for entering the wrong deadlines into
the firm’s internal calendaring system. Dkt. No. 72 at 2. Counsel filed no declaration in support
of her motion. The Court notes that the deadlines for Plaintiff’s opposition were listed on the
public docket. Dkt. No. 68, 69. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an opposition,
the Court addresses the merits.
Plaintiff’s SAC does not remedy the defects the Court identified in its prior dismissal
Case 3:23-cv-05896-EMC Document 73 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
order. The SAC does not contain any new factual allegations, or clarifications to the prior factual
allegations against defendants, that could change the Court’s reasoning. Rather, Plaintiff now
includes additional pleadings that defendants were managerial or supervisory employees and acted
in the scope of their employment. The Court assumed as much in its prior order. As already
explained to Plaintiff, “A supervisor is only liable for harassing conduct that they have personally
participated in” and “mere inaction by a non-harassing supervisor does not create personal
liability.” Dkt. No. 65 at 5 (citing Fiol v. Doellstedt, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1318, 1327 (Cal. App.
1996)). The Court found that the meager factual allegations involving actions by Defendants Rea
and Parra did not state a claim for harassment under FEHA. The SAC, which lacks any new or
clarified factual allegations, does not alter that conclusion. Plaintiff’s late-filed oppositions, which
each devote a mere half a page to Plaintiff’s FEHA claim, only reiterate arguments the Court
considered and rejected in its prior order. See Dkt. Nos. 72-2 at 3; 72-3 at 3. Defendants’ motions
to dismiss the FEHA claim are therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff’s UCL claim is derivative of her
FEHA claim under the “unlawful” prong; Defendants’ motions to dismiss the UCL claim are also
GRANTED.
The Court previously dismissed these claims with leave to amend in case Plaintiff could
make additional factual allegations or clarifications to show harassment by either defendant.
Plaintiff, in her opposition, again seeks leave to amend, claiming that “amendment could easily
clarify Defendant’s participation in the discriminatory actions already alleged.” Dkt. No. 72-2 at
4. But Plaintiff had the opportunity to amend – with the benefit of the Court’s lengthy dismissal
order, which explained in detail where the prior complaint was insufficient – and still failed to
make these “easy clarifications.” Dismissal is therefore granted with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/16/2026
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-05896-EMC Document 73 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 3