Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00371-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

JAMES C. SANCHEZ, City Attorney 

CITY OF FRESNO 

By: Tina R. Griffin, Deputy (#210328) 

2600 Fresno Street 

Fresno, California 93721-3602 

Telephone: (559) 621-7500 

Facsimile: (559) 488-1084 

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL KAUNDART, 

AND CHRIS DICK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEANETTE HOWELL, an individual 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF FRESNO; CAPTAIN PAT 

RHAMES; SERGEANT EARL KAUNDART; 

CHRIS DICK; and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00371-OWW-NEW(TAG)

FIRST AMENDED ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON 

APRIL 6, 2007; GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND REMOVED 

ACTION 

Date: May 14, 2007 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtm: 3 

Senior U.S. District Judge Oliver W. 

Wanger 

The motions of: (1) Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL 

KAUNDART, AND CHRIS DICK’s (“Defendants”), for dismissal, or alternatively more definite 

statement, and motion to strike (“Motion to Dismiss”); (2) Plaintiff, JEANETTE HOWELL’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File A Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand Removed Action, came on regularly for hearing on May 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the 

above-entitled Court, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, Senior U.S. District Judge, presiding. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 47 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 3
Appearing as counsel were Tina R. Griffin of the CITY OF FRESNO on behalf of Defendants, and 

Morris S. Getzels of the Law Office of Morris S. Getzels on behalf of Plaintiff. 

After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition of the motions, and the 

arguments of counsel at the hearing on the motions, the Court finds and orders the following: 

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot because the grounds upon 

which Defendants’ seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint are raised in opposition 

to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint, making discussion 

of the issues duplicative and unnecessary. 

2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on April 6, 2007 is STRICKEN 

because it was filed without first obtaining leave of Court to do so. 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to allege personal 

liability of the individual Defendants, CAPTAIN PAT RHAMES, EARL KAUNDART, AND 

CHRIS DICK, for the proposed first (Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)) and second 

(Violation of Public Policy) causes of actions is DENIED on the ground of futility as a matter of 

law because Plaintiff cannot seek to impose personal liability on the individual Defendants for the 

alleged discriminatory violations of FEHA or violation of public policy. 

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to allege 

paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the proposed 

Second Amended Complaint, with the exception that the term “Defendants” shall be changed to the 

term “Defendant, City of Fresno”, is GRANTED on the ground that such allegations are not futile 

against Defendant, City of Fresno because Plaintiff’s claim to the Department of Fair Employment 

and Housing that she was accused by officers of the Fresno Police Department of drug use because 

of her race would necessarily lead the investigation to Plaintiff’s application for the position and the 

subsequent denial of her application because of her alleged drug use. 

5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to allege the 

second (Violation of Public Policy) and third (Violation of California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8) 

causes of action in the proposed Second Amended Complaint is DENIED on the ground of futility 

as a matter of law because Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the California Government 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 47 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 3
Tort Claims Act which is fatal to those actions. 

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to allege 

prejudgment interest is GRANTED on the ground that such prayer is not futile because the primary 

purpose of Plaintiff’s claim is to recover for the loss of a tangible economic benefit, the employment 

position for which Plaintiff alleges she was not hired because of her race. 

7. Plaintiff is ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this 

Order by June 12, 2007. 

8. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Removed Action is GRANTED once Plaintiff has 

filed the Second Amended Complaint as ordered herein because leave has been granted to file the 

Second Amended Complaint, because no federal question is presented in the Second Amended 

Complaint, and because there have been no proceedings in this Court other than the motions 

discussed in this Order, and discretion is exercised in favor of remanding the action, as amended by 

the Second Amended Complaint, to the Fresno County Superior Court. The federal court has no 

interest in a local employment dispute, not asserting claims under federal law or the U.S. 

Constitution. 

9. Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the remand is 

DENIED because 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) does not apply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: 6/8/2007 By: /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

Senior U.S. District Judge 

OLIVER W. WANGER 

TRG:elb [41296elb/trg] 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:07-cv-00371-OWW -LJO Document 47 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 3