Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01041/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01041-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act

---

1

19-cv-1041-WQH-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINO POLSELLI, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIDNEY AKI; ROBERT HOOD; 

MIOSES CASTILLO; U.S. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION; KEVIN K. 

MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; and DOES 1-30, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-1041-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dino Polselli, Jr. (ECF No. 21).

I. BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Dino Polselli, Jr., filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On 

September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants 

Sidney Aki, Robert Hood, Moises Castillo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), 

the United States of America, and the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (“DHS”). (ECF No. 10). In the FAC, Plaintiff brought claims against 

Case 3:19-cv-01041-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19-cv-1041-WQH-NLS

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

the Acting Secretary of DHS, “acting by and through” Defendants Sidney Aki, Robert 

Hood, and Moises Castillo, for disparate treatment based on disability under the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, retaliation based on protected activity under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, hostile work environment under Title VII, constructive discharge, 

and disparate treatment based on age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

(“ADEA”). (Id. at 5, 8, 11, 12, 14). Plaintiff further brought a claim against Defendant the 

United States of America for failure to pay wages under an employment contract and the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

On September 16, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC. (ECF 

No. 13). On March 3, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s FAC without prejudice and with leave to file a motion 

for leave to amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 20). Specifically, the Court determined that it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ADEA claim and claim for failure to pay 

wages. The Court further dismissed Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages and dismissed 

Defendants Aki, Hood, Castillo, and the Doe Defendants, determining that “[t]he Acting 

Secretary of DHS is the only proper Defendant” on Plaintiff’s remaining claims. (Id. at 20).

On April 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to “remove[ ] the matters 

this Court dismissed, adding no new causes of action, and instead adding only factual 

details to conform to proof based on the same set of facts as those in the original 

Complaint.” (Id. at 2). 

On April 27, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion 

“only to the extent it is inconsistent with the Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 1). Defendants contend that the 

proposed second amended complaint improperly identifies the United States of America 

as a Defendant in the body of the complaint and improperly identifies CBP, Kevin K. 

McAleenan, Aki, Hood, Castillo, and the Doe Defendants in the caption of the complaint. 

Case 3:19-cv-01041-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19-cv-1041-WQH-NLS

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

Defendants further contend that “Plaintiff’s proposed SAC seeks to include additional 

allegations that CBP failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked . . . . The Court, 

however, dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages.” (Id. at 2). 

On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff attaches to the Reply 

an amended proposed second amended complaint that substitutes Chad F. Wolf as the 

Acting Secretary of DHS in place of Kevin K. McAleenan and removes references to the 

United States of America as a Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Defendants fail make any 

showing of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, prejudice, or 

futility sufficient for the Court to deny the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

Complaint. Plaintiff contends that the proposed second amended complaint brings claims 

only against the proper Defendant, the Acting Secretary of DHS. Plaintiff further contends 

that the allegations that CBP failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked “are made 

to demonstrate part of the pattern of intolerable working conditions that Defendant created 

for Plaintiff, and not as an individual claim for which Plaintiff is seeking off-the-clock 

wage-and-hour damages.” (Id. at 3). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied 

with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 

712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Supreme Court has identified several factors district courts should 

consider when deciding whether to grant leave to amend: “undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 

allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962); see also Smith v. Pac. Props. Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Not all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it 

is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 

Case 3:19-cv-01041-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19-cv-1041-WQH-NLS

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

Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. “The party opposing amendment bears the 

burden of showing prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th 

Cir. 1987). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, 

there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence 

Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052.

III. RULING OF THE COURT

In the amended proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims against 

a single Defendant, Chad F. Wolf, the Acting Secretary of DHS, for disparate treatment 

based on disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, retaliation based on protected 

activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, hostile work environment under 

Title VII, and constructive discharge. Defendants have not shown that they would be 

prejudiced by the amendment or made “a strong showing” of undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive, futility of amendment, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies. Eminence 

Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. The Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate 

that the Foman factors warrant deviating from the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor 

of granting leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) is granted. Plaintiff shall file the amended proposed 

second amended complaint attached as “Exhibit A” to Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 23-3) 

within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

Dated: May 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01041-WQH-NLS Document 24 Filed 05/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4