Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03981/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03981-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE H. CHANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCKESSON HBOC, INC., et al.

Defendants. /

No. C07-03981 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Before the Court is Defendants McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”), John Hammergren,

Paul Kirincic, Jerry Warren and Donna Draher’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss

Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 58.) Pro se Plaintiff Christine Chang opposes Defendants’

Motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff filed this case in San Francisco Superior Court on June 29, 2007. Defendant

McKesson removed the case to federal court, and filed a motion to dismiss. (See Docket No. 10.) 

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claim without leave to amend

because Plaintiff was unable to allege state action. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s other four

claims, but granted leave to amend. (See Docket No. 25.) The Court found that it was clear from

the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that the applicable statutes of limitations had run on these four

claims: (1) breach of implied contract; (2) wrongful termination; (3) fraud; and (4) intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff attempted to plead equitable tolling as grounds to alleviate

the time bars, but the Court found that Plaintiff pleaded herself out of that argument. The Court

Case 3:07-cv-03981-MJJ Document 67 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

granted Plaintiff leave to amend to permit Plaintiff to plead equitable estoppel, if facts existed to

support such an argument, as was suggested in paragraphs fifty-six and fifty-seven of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. 

On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (“AC”). (See Docket No. 26.) 

In the AC, Plaintiff attempted to plead equitable estoppel with regard to the four claims for which

the Court granted leave to amend. Defendant McKesson brought another motion to dismiss and on

December 17, 2007 the Court granted it, finding that Plaintiff failed to adequately plead equitable

estoppel. (See Docket No. 48.) The Court also found that none of the individually named

Defendants had appeared in the action, nor was there any proof in the record that Plaintiff served the

AC on the individually named Defendants. The Court therefore quashed prior service, if any, of

Plaintiff’s AC as to all individual Defendants. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to effect service,

if any, on the individually named Defendants within thirty days of the issuance of the order. The

Court cautioned that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

On January16, 2008, Plaintiff timely served current McKesson employees John

Hammergren, Paul Kirincic, Jerry Warren and Donna Draher (“Individual Defendants”). (See Proof

of Service, Docket No. 50.) Defendants now seek to dismiss this action against the Individual

Defendants for the same reasons the Court dismissed the action against Defendant McKesson. 

Defendants further move to dismiss the action against former McKesson employees Christopher

Maher, Tommy Von, Thomas Capizzi, Thomas Puthuff, Kevin Myrica and Richard Soublet

(collectively, “Former Employees”), for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve them as ordered by the

Court.

After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs in this matter, the Court finds that the only

distinction between the questions before the Court now, and the questions it faced in McKesson’s

prior motions to dismiss, is that the Defendants are individual McKesson executives, rather than the

corporation itself. Plaintiff raises no new facts or arguments, however, which would make her

claims against the Individual Defendants timely when her claims against McKesson were not. 

The Court therefore DISMISSES this action against the Individual Defendants for the same

reasons the Court set forth in its prior orders granting Defendant McKesson’s motion to dismiss: that

Case 3:07-cv-03981-MJJ Document 67 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred and that Plaintiff fails to plead adequate grounds for equitable

tolling or equitable estoppel. (See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 25; Order

Granting Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 48.) The Court further DISMISSES this action as against

the former employees because Plaintiff has not offered proof of service on these individuals. The

Court further VACATES the March 4, 2008 hearing in this matter. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to close the file.

Dated: February 29, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03981-MJJ Document 67 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3