Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02323/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 - 07CV2323

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS CENDALI JR.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV2323-LAB (NLS)

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING

AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

TREX ENTERPRISES CORP,

Defendant.

On December 12, 2007, Plaintiff Amos Cendali, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), along with his complaint. On December 14, 2008, the

Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. In the same order, the Court

conducted the mandatory screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissed the

complaint. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies

of his dismissed complaint. Specifically, the Court noted Plaintiff had included no statement

of jurisdiction or factual allegations. In addition, Plaintiff made references to California state

court proceedings but it was unclear what had taken place in the state court. The order

specifically admonished Plaintiff as follows:

1. Plaintiff must explain why the Court has jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff must state plainly what claims he is making against Defendant.

Specifically, he must explain what Defendant did or failed to do, and

why he is entitled to be awarded $1 million in damages as a result.

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 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

- 2 - 07CV2323

3. Plaintiff must explain what claims he brought in state court and how

the state court dealt with those claims. He may do this by either

providing a plain statement summarizing the case history (including

any rulings dismissing claims, any ruling finally dismissing the case,

and the current status of the case), or else by attaching a copy of his

complaint and copies of all rulings made by the state court.

Plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint no later than 30 days from the date the

Court’s order was entered. Plaintiff, however, took no further action until contacting the

Clerk’s office on February 14, 2008, at which time he now says he discovered the Court had

already issued its order.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to extend the 30-day time limit (the “Motion”), and has

submitted his proposed amended complaint (the “FAC”) along with his motion. The Motion

explains the address Plaintiff provided to the Court was actually a mailing address and not

his actual residential address. Plaintiff says he had repeatedly called family members who

lived there, and was told nothing from the Court had arrived for him.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint

Civil Local Rule 83.11(b) requires parties proceeding pro se to keep the Court

informed of their current address. Plaintiff is cautioned that, in future, he should provide an

address where he can reliably receive mail. While the reported explanation that the order

did not arrive in the mail is open to question, the Court accepts the truth of it on this

occasion. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and accepts the FAC for filing.

Because Plaintiff is now on notice that one mailing sent to the address he

provided to the Court either did not arrive or was not forwarded to him, he should take

steps to make sure he receives all future mailings from the Court in a timely fashion,

and is informed of developments in his case. Plaintiff is directed to contact the

PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,

Central Time, to arrange for access to the docket.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 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

- 3 - 07CV2323

II. Mandatory Screening

Having accepted the FAC, the Court now performs the mandatory screening required

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The pleadings are disordered, but the Court has construed them

liberally. Haddock v. Board of Dental Examiners of Cal., 777 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1985).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court is required to dismiss his complaint to

the extent it fails to state a claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court applies the same standard as for

motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

In his original complaint filed in this Court, Plaintiff included no allegations of fact

showing why he was entitled to relief. Instead, he provided citations to authority and

attached various documents which he annotated with arrows, circles, etc., apparently

expecting the Court would review these documents and create arguments for him. The

Court specifically advised Plaintiff it would not do so, and directed him to include factual

allegations.

In his FAC, Plaintiff included only a few scattered factual allegations, and again

attached documents which he annotated with arrows, circles, X’s, etc. He again provided

citations without explanation, this time to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, California

Civil Code §§ 51 and 54, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a). (FAC at 1–2.) Attached documents,

however, show Plaintiff injured his foot at work on November 20, 2003 and was terminated

by his employer the next day. (Id. at 14, 24.) His medical appointment appears to have

been canceled (id. at 26–27), although his employer offered him COBRA. (Id. at 24.)

Plaintiff did, however, attach copies of the state court’s rulings as directed, and the

Court relies on these to determine what claims Plaintiff pursued in state court and what

claims he now wishes to bring.

Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant in the San Diego County Superior Court

on June 12, 2006, identifying his cause of action as “Right to Sue for Disa[b]ility

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 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 1

 Plaintiff attached photocopies of the exhibits but did not effectively differentiate

between them. The Court will therefore adopt Plaintiff’s method of pagination.

- 4 - 07CV2323

Discrimination.” (FAC at 9 (caption of Cendali v. Trex Enterprises Corp. No. GIC867339.)1

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in that action alleged he suffered an injury at work and

afterward was terminated. (Motion at 9 (Superior Court minute order issued April 24, 2007).)

The Superior Court determined Plaintiff’s injury was actually a worker’s compensation claim,

and concluded the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over

that claim. (Id.) The Superior Court also determined that although Plaintiff cited Cal. Civil

Code §§ 51 and 54, as he does in this action, he had not shown his former employer, Trex

Enterprises Corp., was covered by either section. (Id. at 10.) The Superior Court also

dismissed his claims for disability discrimination and for wrongful disclosure of medical

information. (Id. at 9.) The attached documents also suggest he attempted to bring some

kind of claim involving a UNUM Life Insurance Company of America plan (id. at 60), possibly

a claim for denial of benefits.

Plaintiff then followed this dismissal by bringing a claim in the Superior Court against

Defendant for unspecified violations of public policy, which was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction on September 28, 2007. (Motion at 23.)

It is clear Plaintiff has already litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate most of his

claims in state court. This action, therefore, represents either an appeal from the state court

judgment or an attempt to relitigate them. To the extent Plaintiff is complaining the Superior

Court’s dismissal of his claims was improper, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this court

from considering his action. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars plaintiffs in federal court from complaining of a legal injury

caused by a state court judgment in a case in which the federal plaintiff was one of the

litigants). To the extent Plaintiff is simply attempting to litigate claims he brought or could

have brought in the state court action based on the same transaction and occurrence, the

defense of res judicata is apparent on the face of the complaint. See Western Radio

Services Co., Inc. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Res judicata, also

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 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

- 5 - 07CV2323

known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were

raised or could have been raised in the prior action.”)

In his Motion, he also includes some legal terminology labeled “Summ[]ary of

Prosecution Charges” in which he mentions that he wishes to enforce the UNUM Life

Insurance of America Portability Policy Contract.” (Motion at 26.) Elsewhere, he has

included the Certificate of Coverage from UNUM Life Insurance Company of America. (Id.

at 4.) The Superior Court’s rulings do not mention this policy, and it appears Plaintiff

mentioned this policy for the first time in the action at bar. Apparently Plaintiff believes this

policy has something to do with disability or health care, and he may be attempting to appeal

a denial of his claim. Because this is a life insurance policy, however, it is apparent Plaintiff

is not entitled to payment. Because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims

arising under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461, see esp. § 1132(e) (providing for federal

courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over most actions brought under ERISA), any claim for benefits

under a plan governed by ERISA, or any other claim arising under ERISA, could not have

been litigated in state court and is thus not barred by either res judicata or the RookerFeldman doctrine.

III. Conclusion and Order

Because all claims Plaintiff stated in the FAC are barred either by res judicata or the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it is clear the defects in the complaint cannot be cured by

amendment. The complaint is therefore DISMISSED. All claims, other than claims under

ERISA, are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Because Plaintiff alluded to benefits under a plan that may have been governed by

ERISA, this dismissal is without prejudice to any such claims Plaintiff may have. If Plaintiff

wishes to bring a claim under ERISA, however, he has not explained what that claim is.

Because it is not clear Plaintiff cannot state a claim for denial of benefits or some other claim

under ERISA, Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint to state such a claim. If he

attempts to bring a claim under ERISA, Plaintiff is directed to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 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

- 6 - 07CV2323

to state the facts on which his claim is based, and to explain why he is entitled to

relief.

If Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint bringing claims under ERISA,

he should first seek leave to do so by filing a motion to file a second amended complaint,

and should attached his proposed second amended complaint to his motion. Plaintiff is

cautioned that his proposed second amended complaint should not include any claims

previously litigated in state court. If Plaintiff wishes to file such a motion, he may do so no

later than 30 days from the date this order is entered. Plaintiff is also cautioned that

if he fails to seek leave to file a second amended complaint within the time permitted,

or if his proposed second amended complaint does not state a claim under ERISA, his

complaint may be dismissed with prejudice, without further notice to him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02323-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 02/29/08 Page 6 of 6