Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03329/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03329-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOU RAMONDETTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS LIMITED, et al.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-07-3329 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Previously, the Court deferred ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for a more

definite statement in order to give Plaintiff Lou Ramondetta an opportunity to file a supplemental

declaration with respect to the issue of personal jurisdiction over Philips Electronics Ltd. (“PEL”),

Iain Burns, and Steve Hurwitz. 

On November 2, 2007, Mr. Ramondetta filed a document titled “More Defin[i]te Statement

Per Hearing Request,” which did not constitute a declaration as it was not signed under penalty of

perjury. In this document, Mr. Ramondetta made allegations that PEL, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hurwitz

all “did business” in California. Mr. Ramondetta further made various allegations as to how

Defendants wronged him -- allegations that were not a part of his original complaint or a part of the

document titled “Complaint Details and More Definite Statement” which he filed in conjunction

with his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement. These

allegations suggest that Mr. Ramondetta wishes to assert claims for relief beyond those alleged in

his original complaint or suggested by the document titled “Complaint Details and More Definite

Statement.” For example, based on the allegations in the “More Defin[i]te Statement Per Hearing

Case 3:07-cv-03329-EMC Document 44 Filed 11/27/07 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

1

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Mr. Ramondetta actually has the right to amend

once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading has been served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see

also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 496-97 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that a motion to dismiss is not

a responsive pleading); 3-15 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 15.12[1] (noting that “[t]he Ninth Circuit

allows an amendment as of right even after dismissal of the complaint, since the motion to dismiss is

not a responsive pleading”).

2

Request,” it appears that Mr. Ramondetta is asserting that not only did Defendants breach an

agreement with him but they also, inter alia, wrongfully terminated him, tortiously interfered with

his contractual relations, harassed him, retaliated against him, and discriminated against him on the

basis of his national origin and age. According to Mr. Ramondetta, these actions by Defendants

caused him damage in the amount of $565,086, a greater sum than that sought in either his original

complaint ($362,482) or his “Complaint Details and More Definite Statement” document

($377,586).

Taking into account Mr. Ramondetta’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous order and

the breadth of the new allegations in his “More Defin[i]te Statement Per Hearing Request”

document, the Court finds that the best way to proceed is for Mr. Ramondetta to file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint shall be filed and served within twenty (20) days of the

date of this order.

While the Court is permitting Mr. Ramondetta to file an amended complaint,1

 it hereby

forewarns him that, even though proceeding pro se, he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure or risk being subject to sanctions. In particular, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), the amended complaint shall clearly identify (1) each cause of action that is being

asserted and (2) which Defendants are being sued for each cause of action. The amended complaint

shall also include a short and plain statement describing the underlying facts as to why a defendant

is liable for each particular cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring, inter alia, “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). A rambling

statement that does not comply with Rule 8 is subject to dismissal.

The Court notes that, based on Mr. Ramondetta’s “More Defin[i]te Statement Per Hearing

Request” document, it does not appear that Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. (“PMS

Cleveland”); Philips Medical Financial Services, Inc. (“PMFS”); and Philips Electronics North

Case 3:07-cv-03329-EMC Document 44 Filed 11/27/07 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

2

 Mr. Ramondetta should specify whether the discrimination claim is based on federal law or

state law.

3

America Corp. (“PENAC”) engaged in any wrongdoing. There are no allegations that PMS

Cleveland or PMFS engaged in any conduct with respect to Mr. Ramondetta at all. As for PENAC,

the fact that it is “affiliated” with Philips Medical Systems North America (“PMS NA”), the

company that hired Mr. Ramondetta, does not necessarily mean that it engaged in any wrongdoing

itself or can be held liable for acts of PMS NA. As alleged, the wrongdoing was committed by PMS

NA, not PENAC.

The amended complaint shall also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Under

that rule, any pleading filed by a pro se litigant must be signed by the litigant, and that signature is a

certification to the Court that, 

to the best of [his or her] knowledge, information, and belief, formed

after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, -- 

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to

harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the

cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are

warranted by the existing law or by nonfrivolous argument for

the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the

establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentially

support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have

evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the

evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based

on a lack of information or belief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). A party may be sanctioned for failing to comply with Rule 11. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(c). Thus, for example, if Mr. Ramondetta includes in his amended complaint, a claim for

discrimination based on national origin and/or age,2

 then he needs to allege that he has properly

exhausted all applicable administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See, e.g., Lyons v. England, 307

F.3d 1092, 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies under Title

VII requires that the complainant file a timely charge with the EEOC, thereby allowing the agency

Case 3:07-cv-03329-EMC Document 44 Filed 11/27/07 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

3

 For Mr. Ramondetta’s benefit, the Court notes that a court can have either general jurisdiction

over a defendant or specific jurisdiction. If a court lacks general jurisdiction over a defendant, then

there must be specific jurisdiction for each claim asserted against the defendant. See 5B Wright &

Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d § 1351, at n.30 (“[I]f separate claims are pled, specific personal

jurisdiction must independently exist for each claim and the existence of personal jurisdiction for one

claim will not provide the basis for another claim.”).

4

time to investigate the charge”; citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b)); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(d)

(providing that a person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice should file a

verified complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing within one year

from the date that the unlawful employment practice took place).

Upon receipt of the amended complaint, Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to answer or

file a motion to dismiss, whether on the basis of failure to state a claim, for lack of personal

jurisdiction,3

 or otherwise.

To the extent Mr. Ramondetta names in his amended complaint a defendant not previously

identified in his original complaint, then service must be effected consistent with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4, and that defendant shall have the opportunity to respond to the complaint,

whether by answer or motion, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

This order shall not delay any ADR process to which the parties have been referred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03329-EMC Document 44 Filed 11/27/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOU RAMONDETTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS LIMITED, et al.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-07-3329 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Lou Ramondetta

2335 Stewart Ave.

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING

Dated: November 27, 2007 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-03329-EMC Document 44 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 5