Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY GENS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SEZ AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 RE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

MOTION TO STRIKE

[Re: Doc. No. 38]

Defendant SEZ America, Inc. (“SEZ America”) moves to dismiss certain claims and to

strike certain allegations set forth in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Timothy

Gens (“Gens”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers as well as the oral arguments

presented at the hearing on June 2, 2006. The motions are addressed as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1999, Gens and Gary Ferrell (“Ferrell”) formed a company called L-Tech

Corporation. In May 2002, L-Tech merged with SEZ America. Gens thereafter was employed at

SEZ America’s facility in Mountain View, California. Gens was terminated by SEZ America on

October 29, 2003. On October 28, 2004, Gens filed the instant lawsuit against SEZ America in

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

the Santa Clara Superior Court, alleging claims for: (1) age discrimination; (2) termination in

violation of public policy; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) defamation.

SEZ America was served with the summons and complaint on December 9, 2004, and

thereafter successfully demurred to Gens’ defamation claim. Before the time for amendment

granted by the superior court had run, SEZ America removed the action to this Court on the basis

of diversity of citizenship. Gens did not amend his complaint as ordered by the superior court,

but instead filed a motion to remand the case to superior court on April 11, 2005. Shortly

thereafter, SEZ America filed a motion to dismiss Gens’ claim for defamation under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), governing dismissal based upon failure to prosecute or to comply

with a court order. 

This Court denied both motions by order dated March 28, 2006. With respect to SEZ

America’s Rule 41(b) motion, the Court ruled as follows:

Gens therefore had a technical obligation to proceed with his amendment despite

the parties’ dispute with respect to the propriety of the removal. However,

dismissal for failure to comply with this technical obligation – particularly in light

of Gens’ pro se status and the somewhat unusual procedural history of this case –

would not serve the public policy favoring disposition of claims on their merits. 

Defendants will not be prejudiced by permitting Gens to attempt amendment to

his defamation claim, and once Gens has amended there is no reason why this

action cannot proceed in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, the Court will deny

the motion to dismiss an grant Gens seven days within which to file an amended

pleading. 

Order of 3/28/06, p. 10. The Court granted Gens seven days from the service of its order to file

an amended pleading. Gens filed the operative FAC on April 11, 2006. The FAC not only

amends the defamation claim originally pled, but also adds four new claims for invasion of

privacy, illegal wiretapping, violation of the consumer credit reporting agencies act and

termination in violation of public policy.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion For Dismissal Pursuant To Rule 41(b) 

SEZ America moves for dismissal of Gens’ defamation claim, as well as the four newly

added claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), governing dismissal for failure

to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The order in question is this Court’s order

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 6
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

 The postmark on the envelope submitted by Gens actually says “March 30, 2005,” but

the Court presumes that the envelope actually was mailed on March 30, 2006.

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

granting Gens seven days to amend his defamation claim. Gens filed his FAC one day late. The

order of March 28, 2006, granting Gens seven days to amend, apparently was mailed to Gens on

March 30, 2006.2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), when a period of time is less

than eleven days, the day on which the period begins to run is excluded from computation, as are

intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Applying Rule 6(a), Gens had until April

10, 2006 to file an amended pleading. He did not file his FAC until the following day, April 11,

2006. 

When determining whether to dismiss a claim or action under Rule 41(b), the Court must

balance five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The first two

factors are not implicated here, because this case has proceeded at a reasonable pace ever since

the Court denied Gens’ motion for remand. The critical factors are the risk of prejudice to

Defendant and the public policy favoring disposition on the merits.

The Court can perceive no prejudice to SEZ America arising from the filing of the FAC

one day late. SEZ America devotes significant argument to the fact that Gens failed to amend his

original complaint when ordered to do so by the superior court, characterizing Gens as a repeat

violator of court orders. The Court already has addressed Gens’ failure to amend his complaint

following the successful demurrer to the defamation claim in the superior court, and has found

that such failure did not prejudice SEZ America and did not warrant dismissal of the defamation

claim. See Order of 3/28/06. 

SEZ America appears to be requesting that this Court revisit its ruling regarding prejudice

in light of Ferrell’s recent death on March 20, 2006. The Court was not aware of Ferrell’s death

or the impact of his death on this case at the time the Court issued its March 28 order granting

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

Gens leave to amend his defamation claim. SEZ America argues forcefully that Ferrell’s death

changes the landscape of the case significantly, because Gens’ FAC discloses for the first time

that his defamation claim against SEZ America is based in large part upon Ferrell’s conduct. 

Two of Gens’ new claims also are based in large part upon Ferrell’s conduct. SEZ America

argues that Gens could have alleged the bases for his defamation claim and related claims two

years ago, and that had he done so SEZ America would have had an opportunity to depose Ferrell

before he died.

It is clear that SEZ America’s defense with respect to claims based upon Ferrell’s conduct

will be hampered by Ferrell’s death. It also appears clear that Gens could have alleged the bases

for these claims -- that is, Ferrell’s conduct -- some time ago. However, as discussed above and

in the Court’s prior order of March 28, 2006, there was legitimate confusion as to Gens’

obligation to comply with the superior court’s order to amend once the case had been removed. 

Moreover, Gens’ one-day delay in filing his FAC once ordered to do so by the Court cannot be

said to increase SEZ America’s prejudice resulting from Ferrell’s death. Accordingly, the Court

concludes that Rule 41(b) does not justify dismissal of any of Gens’ claims.

The Court concludes that the new claims were added inappropriately, however, because

such claims are outside the scope of the Court’s order granting leave to amend. Read as a whole,

the Court’s order of March 28, 2006 clearly permitted Gens to amend his defamation claim, not

add new claims. SEZ America raises serious questions regarding the propriety of adding new

claim at this stage of the litigation. Accordingly, the Court will strike the newly added claims as

procedurally defective, without prejudice to Gens filing a properly noticed motion for leave to

amend his pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

B. Motion To Strike Paragraph 12

SEZ America moves to dismiss paragraph 12 of the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(f). The Court may strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense or any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Motions to strike

generally will not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could not have any

possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. LeDuc v. Kentucky Central Life

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

Insurance Co., 814 F.Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Allegations “supplying background or

historical material or other matter of an evidentiary nature will not be stricken unless unduly

prejudicial to defendant.” Id. Moreover, allegations that contribute to a full understanding of the

complaint as a whole need not be stricken. Id.

SEZ America argues that the facts contained in paragraph 12 are immaterial to any of

Gens’ claims and that those facts disparage Ferrell in an inappropriate fashion considering that he

is deceased. The Court concludes that the facts alleged in paragraph 12 are relevant to Gens’

claims centering on Ferrell’s conduct and therefore will deny the motion to strike.

III. ORDER

(1) The motion to dismiss the defamation claim is DENIED;

(2) The four newly added claims are hereby STRICKEN without prejudice to Gens’

filing of a noticed motion for leave to amend his pleading; and

(3) The motion to strike paragraph 12 of the FAC is DENIED.

DATED: 6/2/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge 

 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 5 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(JFLC2)

A copy of this Order was served on the following persons:

Plaintiff pro se:

Timothy Gens

Post Office Box 61029

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Counsel for Defendant SEZ America:

Jason A. Geller

David P. Borovsky 

Long & Levit LLP

465 California Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 53 Filed 06/02/06 Page 6 of 6