Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03990/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03990-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE L. KIRBYSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING 

COMPANY; BRUCE SMITH; DAN PORTER; 

WILLIAM BODNAR; BILL REITZEL; 

DANIEL CARLSON; RICK RIOS; TAMMY 

MEAMBER; DIANE DANIELS; LARRY 

ANGEL; UNITED STEEL WORKERS, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 5; JEFF 

CLARK; STEVE ROJEK, and DOES 1 

through 200, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-3990 SC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is the Motion for Sanctions filed by 

Individual Defendants Bruce Smith, Dan Porter, William Bodnar, 

Bill Reitzel, Daniel Carlson, Rick Rios, Tammy Meamber, and Diane 

Daniels (collectively, "the Individual Defendants"). Docket Nos. 

36 ("Mot."), 37 ("Mem. of P. & A."). Plaintiff George Kirbyson 

("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition, and the Individual Defendants 

submitted a Reply. Docket Nos. 43, 45. For the reasons stated 

below, the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 51 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 5
2 

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

For the Northern District of California 

II. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff joined the U.S. Air Force in 1994, and transitioned 

into the Air Force Reserve in 1999. Second Amended Complaint 

("SAC"), Docket No. 41, ¶ 9. Plaintiff began working as a refinery 

operator at the Golden Eagle Refinery in November 1999. Id. ¶ 10. 

In 2003, Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company ("Tesoro") purchased 

the refinery. Id. On January 5, 2005, Plaintiff was recalled to 

active duty, and Tesoro placed him on a military leave of absence. 

Id. ¶ 12. While serving in Iraq, Plaintiff was injured, and 

permanently disabled. Id. ¶ 13. He was medically retired from the 

military in November 2008. Id. On December 22, 2008, Tesoro 

terminated Plaintiff's employment. Id. ¶ 18. 

 On August 28, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this action. See

Docket No. 1 ("Compl."). On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a 

First Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 15 ("FAC"). It alleged 

two causes of action against the Individual Defendants: (1) 

violation of section 389 et seq. of the California Military and 

Veterans Code; and (2) negligent hiring, training, supervision and 

retention. Id. ¶¶ 63-66, 71-73. The Individual Defendants filed a 

Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on March 2, 2010. 

Docket Nos. 22("MTD"), 32 ("March 2, 2010 Order"). 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the court may impose 

sanctions against a party or attorney when a pleading is filed for 

an improper purpose, when the legal contentions are not warranted 

by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension of 

existing law, or when the factual contentions lack evidentiary 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 51 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 5
3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c). "The rule provides two 

independent bases for the imposition of sanctions: one if a 

pleading is frivolous and another if it has been filed for an 

improper purpose." Westlake North Property Owners Ass'n v. City 

of Thousand Oaks, 915 F.2d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1990). The court 

must determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or factually 

baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney 

has conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing 

and filing it. Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 

(9th Cir. 2002). "The key question in assessing frivolousness is 

whether a complaint states an arguable claim - not whether the 

pleader is correct in his perception of the law." Hudson v. Moore 

Business Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IV. DISCUSSION

The Individual Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claim 

against them based on section 389 of the California Military and 

Veterans Code was baseless. Mem. of P. & A. at 10. Section 389 

provides, in part, that "[n]o person shall discriminate against any 

officer, warrant officer or enlisted member of the military or 

naval forces of the state or of the United States because of that 

membership." Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 394(a). This Court 

determined that individual employees could not be held liable under 

this statute for claims arising out of the performance of personnel 

management duties. March 2, 2010 Order at 9-12. The Court noted 

that there was no legal authority directly on point. Id. at 10. 

Plaintiff's argument was text-based, relying on the fact that the 

statute states "no person" shall discriminate. See id. This 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 51 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 5
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

argument, although unsuccessful, was not legally baseless or 

frivolous. 

The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's claim against the 

Individual Defendants for negligent hiring, training, supervision, 

and retention. Id. at 12. The claim was based on an allegation 

that, during the course of a U.S. Department of Labor 

investigation, Diane Daniels ("Daniels") stated she had never heard 

of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

("USERRA"). See id. at 13 n.5; FAC ¶ 37. Daniels worked in 

Tesoro's Human Resources Department, and she informed Plaintiff of 

his termination. FAC ¶¶ 27-28. Although the Court found this 

allegation of ignorance concerning the USERRA insufficient to state 

a plausible claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and 

retention of Daniels, the claim was not entirely baseless or 

frivolous. 

These were the only claims asserted against the Individual 

Defendants. While both claims were unsuccessful, neither claim was 

frivolous, and the Court cannot infer they were filed for an 

improper purpose. Plaintiff's counsel spent 65 hours investigating 

the facts and researching the law before filing the original 

complaint, and engaged in an additional 6.5 hours of research 

before filing the First Amended Complaint. Hewitt Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7.1

 

After Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a Rule 11 letter 

dated January 21, 2009, see Chamberlain Decl. Ex. D,2

 Plaintiff's 

 

1

 Shanan L. Hewitt, attorney for Plaintiff, filed a Declaration in 

Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions. 

Docket No. 43-1. 

2

 Michael S. Chamberlain, attorney for Defendants, filed a 

Declaration in Support of the Motion for Sanctions. Docket No. 38. 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 51 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 5
5 

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

For the Northern District of California 

counsel responded, explaining the basis for believing the claims 

against the Individual Defendants had merit, see id. Ex. C. The 

Court dismissed the two claims against the Individual Defendants, 

but the Court denied the motion to dismiss most of the claims filed 

against the company, Tesoro. See March 2, 2010 Order at 13-18. 

The circumstances of this case are not so unusual as to warrant an 

award of attorney fees to the Individual Defendants. Such an award 

would merely serve to chill zealous advocacy. The Court finds that 

sanctions are not appropriate in this case. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Motion for 

Sanctions filed by the Individual Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 2, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 51 Filed 06/02/10 Page 5 of 5