Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01902-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG/LJP

E-filed on 7/2/07 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAFAEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY INC.; UNITED FOOD &

COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, and

DOES ONE through TWENTY,

Defendants.

No. C-07-01902 RMW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO

AMEND HIS COMPLAINT

On March 5, 2007, plaintiff Rafael Diaz ("Diaz") filed a six-count complaint in the Santa

Clara County Superior Court against Safeway Inc. ("Safeway") and United Food & Commercial

Workers Local 5 ("the Union"), setting forth claims for (1) discrimination and retaliation in violation

of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Government Code § 12940 et seq.,

(2) violation of the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), Government Code § 12945.2,

(3) tortious wrongful termination, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) defamation, and

(6) invasion of privacy. Defendants removed the case to federal court. Safeway moved to dismiss

claims (1), (2), (4), and (5) and the Union moved to dismiss all claims against it. After considering

Mr. Diaz's arguments and letter presented on the day of the hearing, the court granted defendants'

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG/LJP 2

motions in an order dated June 14, 2007, finding that plaintiff's FEHA, CFRA, and defamation

claims against Safeway were time-barred and plaintiff's claims against the Union were more

appropriately pleaded as a duty of fair representation claim, which was barred by a six-month statute

of limitations. The court dismissed the Union as a defendant. Plaintiff's claims for wrongful

termination and invasion of privacy against Safeway survive, as does plaintiff's claim for intentional

infliction of emotional distress, to the extent that claim relies upon the surviving claims against

Safeway.

The court originally did not grant plaintiff leave to amend, as it appeared from the face of the

complaint that the alleged events occurred outside of the relevant limitations periods and amendment

would be futile. However, on June 19, 2007, Mr. Diaz submitted a letter to the court seeking to

"appeal" the court's ruling and explaining additional facts not set forth in the original complaint or

the letter submitted at the hearing regarding the Union's behavior in this matter. Because he is

proceeding pro se, the court will treat Mr. Diaz's June 19, 2006 letter as a motion for relief under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 from this court's June 14, 2007 order. 

In his June 19, 2007 letter, Mr. Diaz asserts that the Union did not inform him that there were

filing deadlines for his claims and that he was told he had to await his arbitration hearing before he

could file any civil claims. According to Mr. Diaz, it was the Union's misrepresentations about how

to proceed that caused his delay in filing his civil claims. These new facts may present a basis for

equitable modification of the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 820

F.2d 1044, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that equitable modification is available in hybrid actions

against a union and an employer); Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 1981)

(setting forth two kinds of equitable modification: equitable tolling and equitable estoppel). 

Because plaintiff has presented the court with additional facts that may permit him to state a

claim against the Union, and because he was not previously given an opportunity to amend his

complaint, the court finds some relief from its June 14, 2007 to be justified. The court will allow

plaintiff to amend his complaint to include these allegations and to attempt to state a claim against

the Union and, to the extent applicable, against Safeway as to those claims that the court previously

found to be time-barred.

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG/LJP 3

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff

has ten (10) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. Because Safeway has

already submitted its answer, it shall be permitted to submit an amended answer in response to

plaintiff's amended complaint, if filed.

DATED: 7/2/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND HIS COMPLAINT—No. C-07-01902 RMW

MAG/LJP 4

A copy of this order was mailed on 7/2/07 to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Rafael Diaz

835 Sylandale Avenue 

San Jose, CA 95111 

PRO SE

Counsel for Defendants:

Mark John Rogers

Dillingham & Murphy LLP

225 Bush Street, Sixth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

William F. Murphy

Dillingham & Murphy LLP

225 Bush Street, Sixth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Caren P. Spencer

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Alameda, CA 94501

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Dated: 7/2/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01902-RMW Document 24 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 4