Campbell v. Regents of UC 12/23/02 CA1/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A097560

Case Date: 03/20/2003

Preview:Filed 12/23/02 Campbell v. The Regents of the University of California CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE JANET CAMPBELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. A097560 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 312736)

Appellant Janet Campbell filed a "whistle-blower" complaint seeking damages from respondent Regents of the University of California (the Regents). The trial court sustained the Regents' demurrer without leave to amend, on the ground that appellant had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and had not shown justification for that failure. On appeal from the subsequent judgment of dismissal, appellant contends she was not required to exhaust her remedies and in any case was not adequately informed by the Regents of an exhaustion requirement. We disagree with appellant's contentions and affirm. I. FACTS At the demurrer stage we assume the truth of the material facts properly pled in the plaintiff's operative pleading, in this case appellant's second amended complaint. (See Garcia v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 728, 732.) We may also take into

1

account matters that can be judicially noticed. (Four Star Electric, Inc. v. F & H Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1379.) We may also consider documents attached to the complaint as exhibits. (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading,

Download Campbell v. Regents of UC 12/23/02 CA1/1.pdf