Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION

HOSPITALS, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-1043 TEH 

ORDER RE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2005

ORDER REQUIRING AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff Michelle Roberson presented pay stubs to the Court

in which her employer was listed as the Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“PMG”). 

However, Plaintiff’s complaint names Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KFH”) as

Plaintiff’s employer. At the September 12 hearing, KFH’s counsel represented to the Court

that counsel would also represent PMG if PMG were properly brought into this action. In

addition, counsel repeated her offer to stipulate that PMG is and was Plaintiff’s employer, as

well as the employer of Plaintiff’s former supervisor, Defendant Melody James. Plaintiff’s

counsel refused to accept this oral stipulation, notwithstanding that the stipulation would

have been placed on the record by an official court reporter.

The Court then ordered the parties to meet and confer to see if they could draft

mutually agreeable language for a written stipulation regarding the identity of Plaintiff’s

employer. The parties failed to do so, and the Court subsequently provided counsel for both

parties with a Court-drafted stipulation. Counsel for Defendants signed the stipulation, but

counsel for Plaintiff refused. Consequently, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to

file and serve an amended complaint by September 22, 2005, that names PMG as a

defendant. The Court further noted that it appears that KFH should no longer be a defendant

in this case given that Plaintiff’s pay stubs list PMG as her employer. Plaintiff was given the

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 136 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 2
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

option of adding PMG as a defendant rather than substituting PMG for KFH in the amended

complaint, but the Court noted that leaving KFH as a defendant in the amended complaint

may lead to increased costs by way of a motion for summary judgment.

The Court now issues this order to advise Plaintiff’s counsel that, if Plaintiff opts not

to remove KFH from the complaint, and KFH successfully moves for summary judgment on

grounds that it is not and has never been Plaintiff’s employer, then this Court may consider

whether sanctions are warranted against Plaintiff for unreasonably and vexatiously

multiplying these proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, “[a]ny attorney or other person

admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so

multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the

court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred

because of such conduct.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 09/16/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 136 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 2