U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright, II this week dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the City of Cypress by former Council member Frances Marquez for a lack of fact, yet gave her attorneys the right to file an answer within 21 days.
Marquez, twice-censored during her four-year term as a member of the Cypress City Council, filed a federal lawsuit near the end of her term against the city for harassment, civil rights, and free speech violations.
Marquez chose not to seek re-election to the Council last year, instead running as a candidate for Orange County Supervisor, a race she lost to former State Sen. Janet Nguyen.
Nguyen is currently serving the First District on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
In 2020, Marquez became the first Latino female elected to the Cypress City Council.
Her term proved to be contentious from the start.
Marquez proved to be quite vocal at city Council meetings and often expressed a minority opinion at the dais, especially outspoken during discussions of the lawsuit against the city for violating the California Voting Rights Act, a suit that cost taxpayers millions before the Council finally settled.
The federal judge ruled there were insufficient factual references for a complaint that Marquez described as “a naked attack on [her] free speech rights.”
The judge also ruled that speech made by Marquez at Cypress High School, with others, was not protected speech as alleged.
One of the two Censures issued by the Council against Marquez during her term resulted from this controversial visit to students at Cypress High School on Sept. 7, 2022.
In short, the judge said in so many words that while her discussion with CHS students may have begun as a civics lesson, of sorts, it devolved into a “nobody gets along (on the City Council),” and “how everybody was out to get her,” Wright said in the ruling.
The 12-page ruling was issued on February 28 as Judge White took a rather narrow view of the Marquez allegations, dismissing the case without prejudice, giving the plaintiff’s legal team 21 days to file additional facts.
“The factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” the Judge wrote…” that is, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
“The determination of whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense,” the federal judge said in the ruling.
“Marquez has not provided any facts showing that she made a statement about by-district elections in some context other than in the course of her duties as a City Councilmember,” Wright wrote.
“Rather, it appears that the other members of the City Council came to know of Marquez’s support for by-district elections through Marquez’s position and subsequent vote as to how the City Council should respond to the [election] Lawsuit,” the judge wrote.
The judge suggested Marquez’s voting record and discussions with other Council members about responding to litigation was “part and parcel” of Marquez’s position as an elected official.
“Marquez also alleges that she ‘repeatedly stated her belief that the City should transition to a by- district election system,’ there is little to no information about when or in what context Marquez made these statements. Without more, Marquez falls short of establishing she engaged in protected speech,” the Judge wrote.
The judge’s ruling regarding Marquez’ claim about the city withholding her protected pay as a city official, said the former official might be smarter to sever that part of the lawsuit and litigate in state, not federal court.
Wright dismissed the complaint but will allow Marquez to refile an amended version of the complaint, either in federal or state court.Marquez’s attorney, Lee Fink of the Brewer Law Group, said she plans to amend her claim.
“The court issued a very narrow ruling and made clear that her claim to recover the salary that the rest of the city council wrongfully withheld could proceed,” said Fink in a statement.
“In accordance with the court’s ruling, we intend to amend the complaint to add further specificity as to the nature of Dr. Marquez’s protected speech. We hope that the new city council in Cypress will see the error of its ways and agree to resolve this case,” Fink said in a written statement.
Marquez called it a “narrow” ruling and promised the information requested by the Judge would be filed within the prescribed period.