Thursday, December 18, 2025
Page 1
Ninth Circuit: Case Alleging Anti-Male Bias at Cal State University Was Properly Axed
Opinion Says No Error in Denying Leave to Amend in Action Asserting That Plaintiff’s Son Committed Suicide After Faulty Sexual Assault Investigation, Drawing Dissent
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that a District Court judge did not err in denying leave to amend to a party asserting a federal sex discrimination claim against the California State University Maritime Academy based on allegations that the plaintiff’s son committed suicide after the school’s purportedly biased handling of a sexual assault investigation, drawing a dissent over the majority’s conclusion that an amendment would be futile.
At issue is whether the plaintiff’s citation to two internal reports by California State University (“CSU”), dated July 2023, which describe problems in the school system’s handling of sexual assault investigations, could cure any pleading deficiencies in the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim, filed under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which was dismissed for failing to adequately allege bias.
In a memorandum decision, signed by Circuit Judges Anthony D. Johnstone and Ana de Alba, the majority characterized the report as “describing systemic delays in Title IX investigations at CSU Maritime and across the CSU system” and said that the documents failed to establish discriminatory practices under governing jurisprudence.
Disagreeing with the majority’s analysis, Circuit Judge Patrick J. Bumatay said that the fact that the reports recommend additional training to ensure that staff understand “how to serve impartially” and avoid “prejudgment of the fact…and bias” could possibly save the plaintiff’s claims.
Complaint Filed
The question arose after Eric Bagnall filed a complaint against the academy, the governing board of trustees, the Title IX investigator assigned to his son’s case, Vineeta Dhillon, as well as the student who accused his son of sexual assault, Lillian Gregg. In the operative, third-amended pleading, he asserted state law negligence causes of action and a claim under Title IX for sex discrimination.
He alleged that Dhillon had made multiple social media posts that “suggest an atmosphere of bias against male respondents” and that his son, Camren Bagnall, killed himself, on Feb. 8, 2021, after news of the investigation led to other students calling him “The First Floor Rapist.”
Eric Bagnall asserts that his son provided a “wealth of exculpatory evidence” that was ignored because “his guilt was prejudged by Dhillon based solely on the fact that he was male.”
Then-Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California (now on senior status) dismissed most of the plaintiff’s claims with leave to amend in March of last year, citing the 2020 Ninth Circuit decision in Schwake v. Arizona Board of Regents.
Failure to Cure
After the plaintiff filed the operative pleading a few days later, Mueller found that the plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies noted in the March 2024 order and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend last December, saying:
“Plaintiff’s Title IX claim failed because it included no allegations of the sort the court discussed in Schwake, such as general pressures against the university to pursue Title IX investigations, trends of disciplinary proceedings being consistently decided against male respondents or any other similar patterns or practice of sex discrimination.”
She added:
“Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are based on audits by the Institutional Response Group examining the CSU Title IX system….The internal audits suggest the CSU Title IX system lacked sufficient infrastructure, which hindered trust among students….These audits do not, however, show the indicia of sex discrimination against males that plaintiff asserts. Moreover, the audits contain no information to support plaintiff’s assertion of procedural irregularities in Camren’s case. Plaintiff’s proposed new allegations fall short of what is necessary to state a claim.”
Eric Bagdall appealed the denial of leave to amend only as to his Title IX claim against the Maritime campus and the CSU Board of Trustees.
Majority’s View
Johnstone and de Alba wrote:
“[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion in determining…that a fourth amended complaint would cause prejudice and undue delay. The district court had already granted Bagnall three opportunities to amend….And the only new allegations Bagnall proposes would come from reports published…before he filed his second amended complaint.”
Adding that “moreover, further amendment would be futile,” they opined:
“In dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, the district court provided detailed instructions to Bagnall on how to cure the deficiencies in his Title IX claim. Bagnall could not cure those deficiencies in his proposed fourth amended complaint because the new allegations rely exclusively on the addition of two reports describing systemic delays in Title IX investigations at CSU Maritime and across the CSU system. The reports contain only generalized assessments about Title IX procedures and do not indicate any background indicia of sex discrimination against men or refer to the facts of Bagnall’s son’s case.”
The jurists continued:
“[E]ven if the new reports could establish relevant background indicia of sex discrimination, as the dissent would hold, they still could not satisfy Schwake,…as the reports do not show facts particular to this case. Because Bagnall identifies nothing in the reports that would support both the background indicia and particular-facts elements of a Title IX claim, amendment would also be futile.”
Bumatay’s Dissent
Noting that a “[r]equest[] for leave to amend is one of the easiest standards to meet in the law,” Bumatay wrote:
“The district court kicked Eric Bagnall out of federal court based on futility. But amendment is only futile if ‘no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim or defense.’…Here, the district court completely dismissed Bagnall’s new factual allegations that are certainly relevant to alleging a Title IX sex discrimination claim. While I am not sure whether Bagnall’s allegations will amount to a viable Title IX claim, he should’ve been given the opportunity to plead it.”
The judge pointed out that the reports cited by the plaintiff “are bleak” and explained:
“Commissioned after several negative, ‘high-profile incidents,’ within the California State University system, these reports document structural deficiencies across California State’s Title IX infrastructure. For example, they note systemwide delays and failures in Title IX responsiveness; an inability to track or identify patterns of misconduct; widespread distrust in the system; and prevalent bullying. At Cal Maritime’s campus specifically, the reports criticize the absence of an on-campus Title IX office, significant community concern about pervasive discrimination and harassment, and a documented ‘trust gap.’ ”
Continuing, he wrote:
“More importantly, the reports acknowledge the significant external pressures that the California State University system faced that drove our decision in Schwake….The California State reports…discuss the difficulties of implementing ‘myriad and shifting government regulations,’ which bring ‘potential harm…to students, faculty and staff—both complainants and respondents[.]’…They further recommend institutional reforms to ‘reinforce[] the neutrality and impartiality of the investigator’s role and diminish[] potential concerns about conflict of interest or bias.’ ”
Saying that “[t]hese facts could potentially lead to the inference that Cal Maritime’s institution’s procedures functioned in a manner that systemically disadvantaged accused male students,” he remarked:
“The district court found prejudice simply because Bagnall [sought to add] six new federal claims, which would ‘likely alter the nature of the litigation and require a new defense strategy.’ That kind of ‘prejudice’ would seem to preclude any amendment of the complaint that adds new claims. But even if so, the district court could have granted leave for Bagnall to amend only his existing claims. After all, the new reports go to the heart of his Title IX claim.”
The case is Bagnall v. California State University Maritime Academy, 25-248.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company