Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00644/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00644-3/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET BAYLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a AMERICAN AIRLINES,

AMERICAN AIRLINES CARGO, GREG GRIFFIN

and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-644 CW

ORDER DENYING

LEAVE TO FILE

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Margaret Bayley moves for leave to file a First

Amended Complaint (FAC) adding Mike Baum as a defendant. Defendant

American Airlines, Inc., opposes the motion. The matter was heard

on July 8, 2005. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties and oral argument on the motion, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's motion.

BACKGROUND

In her original Complaint, filed in San Francisco County

Superior Court on December 21, 2004, Plaintiff brought claims of

disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against her

former employer, Defendant, and her alleged supervisor, Greg

Griffin. Plaintiff also alleged that Does 1-10 "are responsible in

some way for the occurrences herein alleged and Plaintiff's damages

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 7
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

as herein alleged." Complaint ¶ 4. No other specific allegations

were brought against Doe defendants. 

Plaintiff seeks to name Mr. Baum, another supervisor at

American, because she alleges he illegally retaliated against her

by refusing to reinstate her with reasonable accommodation for her

disability. The Court has approved a stipulated dismissal of

Plaintiff's claims against Mr. Griffin, who she originally alleged

was the individual who refused to reinstate her. 

The Court grants Defendant's request for judicial notice of

Plaintiff's two administrative charges with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and California Department of Fair

Employment and Housing (DFEH), as well as the DFEH right-to-sue

letters. Plaintiff's initial administrative claim of

discrimination named only Defendant American in the caption, but

alleged in the body that "principally through, Mike Baum, but

through certain others as well, [Defendant] has acted maliciously

and willfully to harass and injure me by failing and refusing to

make reasonable accommodation for my disability, ignoring my

requests and the advise of my doctors." Defendant's Request for

Judicial Notice, Ex. A. at 2. Plaintiff signed this statement on

December 18, 2003. Plaintiff's later administrative charge of

retaliation named only American in the caption and in the body, and

was dated April 9, 2004. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice,

Ex. B. 

On February 11, 2005, Defendant removed the action to federal

court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder

of Mr. Griffin. 

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 7
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

According to a declaration submitted by Plaintiff's attorney,

"[i]n or about March 2005, Plaintiff became aware of the true

identity of the individual she alleges retaliated against her,"

i.e. Mr. Baum. Mente Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff provides no details or

explanation as to how she learned that Mr. Baum was this

individual. 

Plaintiff filed a purported "Petition to Substitute Fictitious

Name" on March 7, 2005. The Court denied the petition without

prejudice to refiling as a motion for leave to amend her complaint

in conformance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and Civil

Local Rule 10-1. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 20, 2005. In the

proposed FAC, she alleges that Mr. Baum is "the individual

responsible for reinstating employees," and that she made several

unsuccessful attempts to engage Defendant and Mr. Baum in an

interactive process. Proposed FAC ¶¶ 28, 33. The proposed FAC

contains no other specific allegations against Mr. Baum. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of

the court allowing a party to amend its pleading "shall be freely

given when justice so requires." Leave to amend lies within the

sound discretion of the trial court, which discretion "must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision

on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted). Thus, Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to

pleadings should be applied with "extreme liberality." Id.; DCD

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 3 of 7
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

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to

whether a motion for leave to amend should be denied: undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice

to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

The Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight;

specifically, delay alone is insufficient ground for denying leave

to amend. Webb, 655 F.2d at 980. Further, the "liberality in

granting leave to amend is not dependent on whether the amendment

will add causes of action or parties." DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at

186. Rather, the court should consider whether the proposed

amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought

in bad faith, or constitutes an exercise in futility. Id. (citing

Acri v. Int’l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d

1393, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. City of Twin Falls,

806 F.2d 862, 876 (9th Cir. 1986); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d

1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1973); Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath

Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Prejudice typically arises where the opposing party is

surprised with new allegations which require more discovery or will

otherwise delay resolution of the case. See, e.g., Acri, 781 F.2d

at 1398-99; Guthrie v. J.C. Penney Co., 803 F.2d 202, 210 (5th Cir.

1986). The party opposing the motion bears the burden of showing

prejudice. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 186; Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N'

Dive Corp., 562 F.2d 537, 540 (8th Cir. 1977).

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 4 of 7
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

DISCUSSION

Defendant opposes the motion for leave to file the FAC on

grounds of undue delay and futility. Plaintiff did not file a

reply to Defendant's opposition. 

I. Undue Delay

Other than a vague declaration by counsel, Plaintiff has

provided no justification for her delay in naming Mr. Baum as a

Defendant. It is clear, based on her administrative complaint for

disability discrimination, that Plaintiff knew who Mr. Baum was

prior to filing the complaint. Cf. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 474

(allowing amendment to add true name of Doe defendant so designated

when plaintiff is "ignorant" of the Doe's true name); see also Woo

v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 4th 169, 177 (1999) (holding that

§ 474 requires that the plaintiff have been "genuinely ignorant" of

the Doe's identity at the time of filing original complaint)

(citing Optical Surplus, Inc., v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d

776, 783-84 (1991)). Notably absent from the motion is any

explanation of how Plaintiff could have known of Mr. Baum's

identity and his discriminatory acts, but not realized until March,

2005, that it was he who retaliated against her. 

At the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel explained that Mr. Baum's

identification was prompted by a February 8, 2005 declaration by

Mr. Griffin, explaining that his contact with Plaintiff was very

limited. However, this declaration does not mention Mr. Baum or

otherwise reveal previously unknown information about Mr. Baum's

alleged involvement. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff unduly delayed

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 5 of 7
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 6

naming Mr. Baum as a defendant in this case. 

II. Futility

Defendant argues that the proposed claim against Mr. Baum is

barred because inter alia Plaintiff failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies. In order to bring a claim under FEHA,

plaintiffs must first file a verified complaint with the DFEH and

receive a "right to sue" notice. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12960, 12965. 

Plaintiffs must name the alleged defendants either in the caption

or the body of the complaint filed with the DFEH. Cal. Gov. Code 

§§ 12960, 12965(b); see Medix Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Superior

Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th 109, 118 (2002)(sustaining demurrer when

plaintiff failed to name defendants in either the caption or the

body of the FEHA complaint); Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High

Sch. Dist., 47 Cal. App. 4th 1505, 1515 (1996). Exhaustion of this

administrative remedy is a necessary prerequisite to bringing a

FEHA suit. Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 83 (1990). 

Plaintiff clearly filed her April, 2004, administrative claim

for retaliation against American only. Nowhere in the caption or

body did she refer to Mr. Baum, Mr. Griffin or any individual Doe

defendant. At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff conceded that she

had not yet exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to

her claim against Mr. Baum for retaliation. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion

for leave to file the proposed FAC (Docket No. 16). Defendant's

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 6 of 7
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 7

request for judicial notice is GRANTED (Docket No. 5). If, upon

exhausting her administrative remedies, Plaintiff chooses to file a

second motion to amend her complaint, she should allege the causal

link between her protected activity and Mr. Baum's alleged adverse

employment action, and support her motion to amend with a

declaration explaining how and when she learned of Mr. Baum's

involvement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/21/05 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00644-CW Document 43 Filed 07/21/05 Page 7 of 7