Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04650/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04650-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEE M. ROBY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, CAROL HICKEY,

DEBRA WHALEN, PAT NEWTON, and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04650 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND

Now before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Dee M. Roby (“Plaintiff”) to amend her

complaint “to add a Tameny cause of action for discrimination due to her industrial injuries.” 

The Court finds the present motion appropriate for decision without oral argument and hereby

VACATES the hearing set for October 14, 2005. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Defendant American Airline, Inc. previously moved to dismiss causes of action in

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), including the third and fifth causes of action. In

her third cause of action for wrongful termination, Plaintiff had alleged that the defendants

wrongfully terminated her employment. (FAC ¶ 40.) Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action was

entitled “wrongful termination in violation of public policy - labor code § 132(a).” (FAC at p.

8.) In this claim, Plaintiff had alleged that the defendants discriminated against her in violation

of public policy because she suffered an industrial injury and contemplated filing a Workers’

Compensation claim. (FAC ¶¶ 51-54.) 

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 34 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

American Airlines moved to dismiss the third cause of action on the grounds that

Plaintiff failed to identify the specific statutory or constitutional provision that had allegedly

been violated, and moved against the fifth cause of action on the grounds that the California

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claims based on §

132(a). Instead of clarifying what statutory or constitutional provision on which her claim for

wrongful termination was based or arguing that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board did

not have exclusive jurisdiction, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to American

Airlines’ motion. On February 22, 2005, based on Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition, the

Court granted American Airline’s motion and dismissed these causes of action. 

Over five months later, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend. However,

the Court already dismissed the claim Plaintiff now seeks leave to allege. Plaintiff “concurs”

that the third cause of action in her FAC was a “common law cause of action (Tameny) for

Wrongful Termination.” (Reply Br. at 2.) Plaintiff argues that the fifth cause of action in her

FAC was merely alleging a statutory violation and was not a claim for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy. (Reply Br. at 2.) However, a review of Plaintiff’s allegations in this

claim demonstrates otherwise.

Because the claim Plaintiff now seeks leave to allege has already been dismissed by this

Court, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 34 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2