Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03602/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03602-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM—No. C-09-03602 RMW

CCL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 2/26/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HERBERT J. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D-WAVE SYSTEMS INC. dba D-WAVE

SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-09-03602 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S

COUNTERCLAIM

[Re Docket No. 53]

Defendant D-Wave Systems Inc., doing business as D-Wave Systems International, Inc. ("DWave") moves to dismiss plaintiff Herbert J. Martin ("Martin")'s counterclaim for age discrimination

under the British Columbia Human Rights Code and also moves for sanctions under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 11. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion to dismiss plaintiff's

counterclaim and denies the motion for sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2009, Martin filed a complaint against D-Wave, alleging age discrimination

under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), breach of employment contract,

misrepresentation to induce employment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California Labor

Code Section 970. On December 1, 2009, the court issued an order finding that Canadian law, not

Case 5:09-cv-03602-RMW Document 59 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM—No. C-09-03602 RMW

CCL 2

California law, governs the dispute in this action and dismissing plaintiff's California law claims. 

On December 23, 2009, Martin filed a counterclaim against D-Wave, alleging age discrimination

under the British Columbia's Human Rights Code. D-Wave now moves to dismiss this counterclaim

and for sanctions. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Age Discrimination Counterclaim

Martin's counterclaim alleges age discrimination under Chapter 210 Section 13 of the British

Columbia Human Rights Code. D-Wave contends that plaintiff fails to state a claim under Canadian

law because alleged violations of the British Columbia Human Rights Code can only be heard by the

Human Rights Tribunal, and there is no independent civil cause of action arising from a breach of

the British Columbia Human Rights Code. See Seneca College v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181,

195 (holding that "not only does the [Ontario Human Rights] Code foreclose any civil action based

directly upon a breach thereof but it also excludes any common law action based on an invocation of

the public policy expressed in the code" because the Code is comprehensive and "has laid out the

procedures for vindication of that public policy"); see also Moore v. HMTQ in Right of the Province

of British Columbia, Case No. CA006286 p. 6 ("[t]he appellant must pursue those claims [for

violation of the British Columbia Human Rights Code] under the procedure provided in the [Human

Rights] Act, which forecloses any civil action based directly upon a breach thereof, and also

excludes any common law action based on invocation of a public policy expressed in the Act"). 

Martin concedes that he would not have a cause of action in a Canadian court but argues that the

requirement of bringing a discrimination case before the Human Rights Tribunal is merely

procedural rather than substantive and therefore does not apply. 

Under the well-established Erie doctrine, "federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction

apply state substantive law and federal procedural law." Sea Hawk Seafoods v. Exxon Corp., 484

F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752, 761 (9th

Cir. 2003)). Therefore, if the limitation that discrimination cases under the British Columbia Human

Rights Code can only be brought before the Human Rights Tribunal is substantive, as D-Wave

contends, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On the other hand, if

Case 5:09-cv-03602-RMW Document 59 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM—No. C-09-03602 RMW

CCL 3

this limitation is merely procedural, as plaintiff contends, the court would not be barred from hearing

this claim.

The requirement that a claim must be brought before a specified tribunal or other entity is

substantive law. See Feinstein v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 643 F.2d 880, 885 n.7 (1st Cir. 1981) ("every

court that has considered the question has concluded that the Erie doctrine requires a federal court

sitting in diversity to apply a state statute requiring referral of a medical malpractice action to a

state-created arbitration panel or hearing tribunal"); see also Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d

1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Feinstein and agreeing that "by reason of the policies expressed

in Erie, a federal court requires that a state's rule barring an action from proceeding in its courts

must be applied to bar the action from the federal court."). Therefore, the court dismisses plaintiff's

age discrimination counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

B. Rule 11 Sanctions

D-Wave also seeks sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for Martin's refusal to

strike the counterclaim despite the fact that it clearly fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. A motion for sanctions under Rule 11 must be served twenty-one days prior to filing the

motion with the court, and if the challenged claim is withdrawn within twenty-one days after

service, the motion must not be filed. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(c)(2). Martin represented to the court

that D-Wave has made no attempt to comply with this twenty-one day service requirement. Opp'n at

3. Therefore, the motion for sanctions is denied. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the motion to dismiss plaintiff's age

discrimination counterclaim and denies the motion for sanctions.

DATED: 2/26/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-03602-RMW Document 59 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM—No. C-09-03602 RMW

CCL 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Henry George Wykowski hgw@wykowskilaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

James Sullivan McNeill jmcneill@mckennalong.com 

Megan Marie Duma mduma@mckennalong.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2/26/10 CCL

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:09-cv-03602-RMW Document 59 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 4