What is the test for establishing a causation element in a First Amendment retaliation claim?

To satisfy the causation element of a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that the protected activity was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the defendant's decision to take the adverse action. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff can prove retaliatory motive with either direct or circumstantial evidence. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). But because "direct evidence of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, circumstantial evidence from which retaliation can be inferred is sufficient to survive dismissal." Id. Here, plaintiff attempts to establish retaliatory intent through circumstantial evidence.

To infer retaliatory intent through circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff's protected activity prior to taking the adverse action, as well as some other evidence probative of motive, such as: (1) temporal proximity between the protected activity and the retaliation; (2) the defendant's expressed opposition to the protected activity; or (3) other evidence that the reasons proffered by the defendant for the adverse action were false and pretextual. Ulrich v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

As discussed below, the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged causation in the

Page 6