Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03988-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 6/6/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAFRONIA DODD-OWENS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

KYPHON, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

[re: docket no. 42, 51]

I. BACKGROUND

The original complaint in this action was filed on June 27, 2006. Plaintiffs Safronia

Dodd-Owens (“Dodd-Owens”), Natalie Amaya (“Amaya”), Tera Bryer, Tiffany Socha (“Socha”),

Teri Carr, and Elizabeth Glus (“Glus”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complained of gender

discrimination by Kyphon, Inc. (“Kyphon”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated. The original complaint included nine claims alleging gender and pregnancy

discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of California and federal law.

On October 27, 2006, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint. On November

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

9, 2006, the Court issued an order directing that the FAC be filed as of right and denying as moot

Kyphon’s previously-filed motions to dismiss six claims and to strike the class action allegations

from the complaint. The FAC includes ten claims, of which the first two are asserted on behalf

of a putative class: (1) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (2) gender discrimination in violation of FEHA,

Cal. Gov. Code § 12940; (3) pregnancy discrimination against Dodd-Owens in violation of Title

VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; (4) retaliation against Dodd-Owens in violation of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-3; (5) retaliation against Amaya in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3;

(6) pregnancy discrimination against Glus in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;

(7) retaliation against Glus in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and Cal. Gov. Code §

12940(h); (8) sexual harassment against Glus in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;

(9) pregnancy discrimination against Socha in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.;

and (10) retaliation against Socha in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

On November 29, 2006, Kryphon moved to dismiss the second and fourth claims to the

extent that they rely on FEHA because the alleged conduct occurred outside California. On the

same date, Kryphon moved to strike the class action allegations, FAC ¶¶ 20-42 (“class action

allegations”), from the FAC. Plaintiffs opposed both motions. On February 5, 2007, the Court

granted both motions with leave to amend. On February 9, 2007, the Court issued a separate

order directing that any amended complaint be filed by March 7, 2007 (“the February 9th

Order”).

On March 27, 2007, Kyphon moved to dismiss the class claims and the FEHA claims

because Plaintiffs had failed to file an amended complaint, and asked the Court to set a date for it

to respond to the remaining individual claims. On April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs moved to file a

second amended complaint out of time and opposed the motion to dismiss. Kyphon opposes the

motion to file a second amended complaint. The Court heard oral argument on May 25, 2007. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Dismissal Under Rule 41(b)

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply

with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any

claim against the defendant.” The Ninth Circuit has explained:

Under our precedents, in order for a court to dismiss a case as a sanction, the

district court must consider five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. We may affirm a

dismissal where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least three

factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal. Although it is preferred, it is not required

that the district court make explicit findings in order to show that it has considered

these factors and we may review the record independently to determine if the

district court has abused its discretion.

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted). 

2. Leave to Amend

A motion for leave to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which

provides that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In deciding whether to grant

leave to amend, the Court will consider several factors, including: (1) undue delay by the party

seeking the amendment; (2) prejudice to the opposing party; (3) bad faith; (4) futility of

amendment; and (5) whether the party previously has amended its pleadings. Bonin v. Calderon,

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs assert that “any delay in filing the Second Amended Complaint is due [sic] the

fact that, at the time Plaintiffs were required to file their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’

counsel was still investigating developments in the case, conferring with a new plaintiff and

finalizing the Amended Complaint.” Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 4. Even if this is true,

Plaintiffs should have moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs

describe their failure to do so as excusable neglect and assert that they were unaware of the

deadline imposed by the February 9th Order. Id. Plaintiffs have eleven attorneys of record. The

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 7
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 February 9th Order also was emailed to two individuals who appear to be legal 2

assistants to two of Plaintiffs’ attorneys.

 Seven of Plaintiffs’ attorneys have not registered to receive notices of docket events via 3

electronic filing. They are hereby directed to register forthwith so that service may be made by

email. See General Order 45 § IV.A.

4

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

February 9th Order was sent to ten of them: four by email and six by mail. It also was posted 2 3

electronically. The text of the order is less than three lines long and is not open to

misinterpretation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that counsel for Plaintiffs have not provided

a reasonable explanation of their failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to comply with the

February 9th Order raises a strong inference of prejudice to Kyphon. See e.g. Yourish, 191 F.3d

at 191; Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, Kyphon

asserts that it is prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ continued disparagement of Kyphon and by Plaintiffs’

ongoing efforts to find additional plaintiffs in what they have referred to as their “$100 Million

lawsuit.” Hams Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. However, even assuming prejudice, the Court concludes that the

remaining factors do not weigh sufficiently in favor of Kyphon to warrant dismissal of the

subject claims at the pleading stage. Public policy weighs in favor of determining this action on

the merits. While dismissal arguably would assist the Court in managing its docket, it likely

would not do so significantly, since, as Kyphon concedes, the action still would proceed with

respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, and other potential plaintiffs could join the action at a

later date or bring separate actions. Other, less drastic sanctions also are available. Accordingly,

the Court concludes that the individual FEHA and non-FEHA class claims should not be

dismissed merely because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the February 9th Order.

The Court concludes that leave to amend is appropriate as to the non-FEHA class action

and individual Title VII claims. However, with respect to the amended FEHA class action claim,

the Court concludes that leave should not be granted. As the Court explained in its prior order,

“[i]f California-based employees participated in or ratified the alleged tortious conduct, the

complaint must so state with specificity so that the Court can determine if these actions are

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

sufficient to state a claim under FEHA.” February 5th Order 4. Even in Plaintiffs’ untimely

amended complaint, the only class representative with alleged connections to California is the

newly-added Christy Wronikowski (“Wronikowski”), who began working with Kyphon in

Tennessee in August 2006 and was transferred to California in January 2007, six months after

this action was filed. The proposed amended complaint does not allege the location of the

alleged tortious conduct. The most reasonable inference from the allegations is that the alleged

harassment occurred in Tennessee, as it alleged that Wronikowski spoke with Steve Carmody

(“Carmody”), the manager who is the alleged source of the harassment, “before accepting the job

at Kyphon.” Proposed Complaint ¶ 116. The proposed complaint does not allege that Carmody

has a connection with California. Under these circumstances, amendment of the FEHA claim

would appear to be futile. Moreover, because no other purported class representative has a

connection with California, significant class composition issues likely would arise even if

another representative plaintiff could allege a connection with California. While under other

circumstances it might consider granting further leave to amend, given Plaintiff’s undue delay in

filing their current amended complaint, Plaintiffs’ assertion that such delay was caused at least in

part by counsel’s investigation of the facts and the ongoing burden of protracted motion practice

to both Kyphon and to the Court, the Court declines to grant Plaintiffs yet another additional

opportunity to overcome what appears to be a jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, the Court

concludes that any FEHA claims against Kyphon, if such viable claims do exist, should be

brought in separate actions. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is

DENIED and that the motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with this order on or before June 12,

2007. The parties shall appear for a case management conference on June 29, 2007 at 10.30 a.m.

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

DATED: June 6, 2007.

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case No. C 06-3988 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC1)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Frederick J. Geonetta landglawyers@msn.com, 

Harold R. Jones hrj@severson.com, ano@severson.com 

Thomas Marc Litton tmlitton@compuserve.com, 

Rhonda L. Nelson rln@severson.com, 

David W. Sanford dsanford@nydclaw.com, fgilbert@nydclaw.com 

Steven Lance Wittels swittels@nydclaw.com, sprasad@nydclaw.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Shayna Bloom 

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP

Suite 310

1666 Connecticut Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20009

Angela Corridan 

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP

1666 Connecticut Avenue NW

Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Laura Fentonmiller 

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Jeremy Heisler 

Sanford Wittels & Heisler

950 Third Avenue

10th Floor

New York, NY 10022

Grant Morris 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Stefanie Roemer 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Janette Wipper 

Sanford Wittles & Heisler, LLp

1666 Connecticut Avenue NW

Suite 310

Washington, DC 20009

Case 5:06-cv-03988-JF Document 74 Filed 06/06/07 Page 7 of 7