Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIOTR J. GARDIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-04086 HRL

Consolidated With: C04-04768 HRL

C05-01242 HRL

C05-01833 HRL

C06-04695 HRL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO DEEM “MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE” TO BE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Presently before the court is a dispute between the parties as to whether plaintiff’s

apparent dissatisfaction about how Chris Nordby obtained a position in defendant’s

Cogeneration Turbine Plant is or is not a claim properly raised in the instant consolidated

action. (Plaintiff seems to believe that the job should have gone to himself.) Defendant

reportedly has produced requested discovery pertaining to Nordby and a Cogeneration Turbine

Plant position, but it maintains that the information is irrelevant because the issue was not

alleged in any of plaintiff’s complaints. Plaintiff disagrees and argues that his August 14, 2006

“Motion to Consolidate” (Case C04-04086, Docket No. 82) should now be deemed an

amendment to his final (fifth) complaint. The court previously issued an order to show cause

giving the parties an opportunity to brief the issue, and the matter was deemed submitted

*E-FILED: 9/10/2007*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 287 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2

without oral argument.

Upon consideration of the papers filed by the parties, this court issues the following

order.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for leave to amend

and provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). 

The decision whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a) is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial court. See Waits v. Weller, 653 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave

need not be granted, however, where the amendment would cause the opposing party undue

prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. 

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

In this case, the court concludes that there is no justification for plaintiff’s request to

retroactively deem his “Motion to Consolidate”– which was filed over one year ago – to be an

amended complaint. None of plaintiff’s complaints in this consolidated litigation provide notice

of any claims pertaining to Nordby and a Cogeneration Turbine Plant position. The only

mention of Nordby is a passing reference buried within the mass of letters and other documents

appended to plaintiff’s form complaint in Case C06-04695. However, defendant indicates that

those attachments apparently were filed only with the court and were not served with

defendant’s copy of the complaint in that case. In any event, even broadly construing that

complaint, the fleeting reference in the attachments to Nordby and the Cogeneration Turbine

Plant position is insufficient to provide notice of any claim for relief based upon the same. 

(Indeed, it is not clear from the reference that plaintiff is even asserting a claim for relief, as

opposed to merely complaining about another instance of perceived unfair treatment by

defendant.)

Plaintiff seems to contend that his “Motion to Consolidate” may automatically be

deemed an amended pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, he points out that the “Motion

to Consolidate” was filed before defendant answered the complaint in Case C06-04695. It is

true that a party “may amend [its] pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served . . ..” FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a). However, at the time plaintiff filed his

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 287 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1 Plaintiff has filed amendments as of right before (see, e.g., plaintiff’s “First

Amended Complaint,” Case No. C04-04086, Docket No. 7). If he really intended to do so

here, he knew how to do so properly.

2 Each of the five complaints that comprise this consolidated action concern

specifically identified positions which plaintiff claims should have been given to him.

3

“Motion to Consolidate,” there was no indication that it was, or that plaintiff intended it to be,

anything other than a request that Case C06-04695 be consolidated with his four earlier-filed

lawsuits.1

 Moreover, while the “Motion to Consolidate” attaches several documents concerning

a host of issues (including Nordby and the Cogeneration Turbine Plant), it does not provide

proper notice of any claim for relief. It was not until after defendant answered the complaint,

and after it raised relevance objections to his discovery requests, that plaintiff suddenly claimed

that his “Motion to Consolidate” was really intended to be an amended pleading. Plaintiff’s

(after-the-fact) pronouncement as to his “Motion to Consolidate” does not transform that

document into an amendment of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Further, it is not apparent that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by raising

his grievance about Nordby and the Cogeneration Turbine Plant position in EEOC Charge No.

556-2006-00182 (the apparent basis of his complaint in Case No. C06-04695). EEOC charges

are liberally construed; and, a federal court may consider allegations of discrimination which

were not raised in an EEOC charge, but which nevertheless are like or reasonably related to the

allegations contained in the charge. See B.K.B v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th

Cir. 2002). Here, the basis of plaintiff’s claims is that he was essentially demoted and

wrongfully denied promotions to specific and distinct positions (Campus Engineer and

Associate Director) at San Jose State University. (See Complaint C06-04695). If plaintiff truly

intended to assert a claim for relief as to the Cogeneration Turbine Plant position, he certainly

knew how to do so.2

 There is no indication that plaintiff intended to include any claim as to

Nordby and the Cogeneration Turbine Plant position in EEOC Charge No. 556-2006-00182

before the EEOC concluded its investigation and issued a right-to-sue notice. Indeed, the

attachments to his “Motion to Consolidate” indicate that he only attempted to have the EEOC

examine various letters about Nordby months after the EEOC closed its files as to that charge.

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 287 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request to retroactively deem his “Motion to

Consolidate” to be an amended pleading is denied. Plaintiff has not and may not state a claim

for relief with respect to Nordby and the Cogeneration Turbine Plant position.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

September 10, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 287 Filed 09/10/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, David.Moss@doj.ca.gov 

Fiel D. Tigno fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov 

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 287 Filed 09/10/07 Page 5 of 5