SAN JOSE – An all-female judges’ panel in California's Sixth District Court of Appeal, which was noted on the court’s website as an historic event, recently affirmed a lower court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit filed by a San Jose State University professor who had claimed some university employees and university administrators accused him of trying to defraud the university by seeking airfare reimbursement for himself and a traveling companion.
The appeals court, in its Oct. 5 opinion, affirmed the Santa Clara County Superior Court's decision to dismiss the suit filed by the professor, Sak Onkvisit. The ruling was announced by Associate Justice Adrienne M. Grover, with Associate Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian and Justice Mary J. Greenwood concurring.
According to court filings, Onkvisit attended an academic conference in Thailand and then sought reimbursement from the university for the cost of his plane ticket. Two employees who were responsible for processing the request refused to do so and then reported that the professor was attempting to defraud the university by seeking payment for the airfare of a travel companion. Onkvisit then sued the employees, as well as their supervisor, the dean of the university, the associate dean and a department chair.
Onkvisit represented himself and failed to meet some of the requirements for filing a lawsuit, which resulted in the lower court rejecting his arguments. Onkvisit then filed a second amended complaint alleging causes of action for retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act and invasion of privacy. In their objection, defendants pointed out that Onkvisit had not complied with the pre-lawsuit notice provision of the Government Claims Act.
In the appeals court decision, Grover said, “Much of plaintiff’s briefing is devoted to arguments regarding the order granting defendants’ motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP ) statute. We need not address those arguments because plaintiff forfeited his appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling by not filing a notice of appeal within 60 days from notice of the order granting the motion.” The anti-SLAAP statute prohibits lawsuits that target free speech about a matter of public importance.
“When ruling on an objection, the allegations of a complaint are assumed to be true," Grover said. "That rule applies to factual allegations, however; not to legal conclusions such as whether a defendant acted within the course and scope of employment. We are not required to accept plaintiff’s assertion that defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment.”
Court filings said Onkvisit also did not present his allegations to administrators at the university before filing his lawsuit. Concerning this oversight, Grover said, “The complaint does not allege that plaintiff complied with the Government Claims Act which generally requires that claims for damages against a public entity be presented to the entity before the injured party files a lawsuit to recover those damages. The purpose of that requirement is to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.’
In conclusion, Grover said, “The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded costs on appeal.”