Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Bettencourt
Defendant
Aaron Davis
Plaintiff
Ron Foster
Defendant
Foster Farms Dairy
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON DAVIS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

FOSTER FARMS DAIRY, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-271 OWW/DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO STRIKE AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Doc. 35) AND

STRIKING THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Doc. 34)

On November 13, 2006, Plaintiff Aaron Davis, proceeding in

pro per, filed an “Amended Complaint with Supplemental Facts”. 

(Doc. 34).

Defendants move to strike this Amended Complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because Plaintiff

failed to obtain permission to file the Amended Complaint as

required by Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff, who appeared at the hearing, did not file a

written opposition to the motion to strike. Rule 78-230(c),

Local Rules of Practice, provides in pertinent part:

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 14
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

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 24, 2005, 1

giving it the case number No. CV-F-04-6634 REC/DLB. Because this

pleading was filed on the same day as the Order severing

Plaintiff’s claims, it is disregarded for purposes of this motion.

2

Opposition, if any, to the granting of the

motion shall be in writing and shall be filed

with the Clerk not less than fourteen (14)

days preceding the noticed (or continued)

hearing date. Opposition shall be [served]

on opposing counsel not less than fourteen

(14) days preceding the hearing date

(personal service) or mailed or electronic

served not less than seventeen (17) days

preceding the hearing date. A responding

party who has no opposition to the granting

of the motion shall serve and file a

statement to that effect, specifically

designating the motion in question. No party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to

a motion at oral argument if opposition to

the motion has not been timely served by that

party. 

Initially, Plaintiff was one of a trio of plaintiffs who

brought an action against Defendants in No. CV-F-04-6634 REC/DLB. 

By Order filed on February 24, 2005, Plaintiff’s claims were

severed and Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended Complaint

in a separate civil action. After receiving an extension of

time, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint (hereinafter referred

to as the First Amended Complaint or FAC) commencing this action

on June 15, 2005. Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC on 1

April 17, 2006. A scheduling conference was held on October 20,

2006. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order filed on October 23,

2006, “[t]he parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time.” However, on October 25, 2006,

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to submit

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 14
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

3

“supplemental facts”. On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

“Second Amended Complaint for Damages and To Turn in Supplemental

Facts” (hereinafter referred to as the Second Amended Complaint

or SAC) without first having obtained leave of court to do so. 

Defendants filed an Answer to the SAC on November 13, 2006. Also

on November 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint with

Supplemental Facts” (hereafter referred to as the Third Amended

Complaint or TAC) without first obtaining leave of court.

Rule 15(a) provides in pertinent part:

A party may amend the party’s pleading once

as a matter of course at any time before a

responsive pleading is served ... Otherwise a

party may amend the party’s pleading only by

leave of court or by written consent of the

adverse party; and leave shall be freely

given when justice so requires. 

As explained in Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and

Procedure: Civil 2d § 1484 at pp. 601-602:

In general, if an amendment that cannot be

made as of right is served without obtaining

the court’s leave or the opposing party’s

consent, it is without legal effect and any

new matter it contains will not be considered

unless the amendment is resubmitted for the

court’s approval. However, some courts have

held that an untimely amended pleading served

without judicial permission may be considered

as properly introduced when leave to amend

would have been granted had it been sought

and when it does not appear that any of the

parties will be prejudiced by allowing the

change. Permitting an amendment without

formal application to the court under these

circumstances is in keeping with the overall

liberal policy of Rule 15(a) and the general

desirability of minimizing needless

formalities. On the other hand, a more

restrictive attitude toward the failure of a

party to proceed in the manner prescribed by

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 14
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

4

the rule could be justified if it becomes

necessary to discourage litigants from

totally disregarding the requirements of

subdivision (a). 

In the Amended Complaint filed on June 15, 2005, Plaintiff

names as defendants Foster Farms Dairy, David Bettancourt, Plant

Manager for Foster Farms Dairy, and Ron Foster, owner of Foster

Farms Dairy. The Amended Complaint alleges that it is brought

for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. The

Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s employment was

terminated in February 2005 “after he was subpoenaed for a

deposition regarding a Foster Farms which involved discriminatory

action(s) against African Americans and where Plaintiff was under

oath and disclosed the discriminatory action(s) of Foster Farms

and 28 other related issues that Foster Farms did not want

disclosed” [sic]; that Defendants’ “employment practice or

policies ... has had a discriminatory effect or impact upon him

for the last fifteen years”; that Defendants “refusal to promote

African Americans and loss of employment-related opportunities

constitute [sic] a disparate treatment in that it was based on

the fact that plaintiff was terminated for his support of African

American rights”; that Plaintiff “bases this conclusion on the

fact that defendants continued to seek applicants

(White/Caucasian) for either management positions or employment

opportunities”; and that during his employment at Foster Farms

Dairy “he was subject to racial comments, epithets and slurs at

the workplace including, but not limited to the following:

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 4 of 14
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

5

‘NIGGER LOVER’ and ‘Fuck You Tanto’.” The Second Cause of Action

is captioned “Director’s and Supervisors Liability” and alleges

that Defendants “were at all times on notice of the acts (or

should have been on notice) of racial discrimination and bigotry

toward African American race and his friends national origin but

failed to take appropriate steps to terminate these defendants,

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, who engaged in such

discriminatory acts”, and that Defendants thereby ratified and

affirmed such discriminatory conduct. The Third Cause of Action

is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Fourth

Cause of Action is for Injunctive Relief, alleging that “[u]nless

restrained and enjoined from the racially motivated

discrimination described in the preceding paragraphs of this

pleading and compelled to appear and show cause why they should

not be disqualified from participation in all federal, state and

local programs, defendants ... will continue to engage in racial

discrimination in employment in violation of law, and plaintiff

will continue to suffer irreparable injury.” The Fourth Cause of

Action prays for a “Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and

Order to Show Cause”:

a) For Order prohibiting defendants ... and

every person or business entity that employs

or is owned or controlled by any defendant(s)

with knowledge of the Court’s Order from

engaging in any act of discrimination in

employment based on race, national origin,

age, gender or gender preference that is

prohibited by law; and

b) For Order requiring defendants ... and

every person or business entity that employs

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 5 of 14
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

6

or that is owned or controlled by any

defendant(s) with knowledge of the Court’s

Order to hire or promote qualified persons of

female, Afro Americans [sic], and Hispanic

origin at all levels staffing and management

in proportion to each group’s statistical and

numeric representation in Fresno County,

California as a remedy for past racial and

ethnic discrimination by defendant ...; and

c) For Order prohibiting defendants ... and

every person or business entity that employs

or that is owned or controlled by any

defendant(s) with knowledge of the Court’s

Order from applying for, cashing, or

receiving any benefits, direct or indirect,

from any federal, state, or local program(s)

of any kind unless and until defendants (1)

have made plaintiff whole of and from the

injury, damage, and loss caused by

defendant’s discriminatory conduct in

employment described in this pleading [sic];

and (2) have proven to the satisfaction of

this Court by a preponderance of the evidence

that FOSTER FARMS DAIRY INC. has terminated

its relationship of every kind with all

persons who aided, abetted, facilitated, or

engaged in the discriminatory acts complained

of herein; (3) have proven to the

satisfaction of this Court by a preponderance

of the evidence that FOSTER FARMS DAIRY inc.

has hire and promote qualified persons of

female, African Americans, and Hispanic

origin at all levels staffing and management

within defendant FOSTER FARMS DAIRY INC. in

proportion to each group’s statistical and

numeric representation in Fresno County,

California as a remedy for past racial and

ethnic discrimination by defendants ....

In addition to this injunctive relief, the FAC prays for

compensatory, general and punitive damages, and for the Court “to

set aside the general release”.

The SAC filed on October 27, 2006, without prior leave of

court, essentially alleges the same facts and causes of action

set forth in the FAC. However, the SAC includes new causes of

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 6 of 14
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

7

action. The Fifth Cause of Action is for “wrongful termination

in violation of the Federal False Claims Act” and the Sixth Cause

of Action is for “wrongful termination in violation of the State

False Claims Act”. These causes of action are alleged against

Foster Farms Dairy and Does 1-5, allege that these defendants had 

contracts or subcontracts to supply goods to the United States

and the State of California; that these defendants violated the

False Claims Acts by:

(A) They knowingly presented or caused to be

presented to the United States [or the State

of California] false or fraudulent claims for

payment;

(B) They knowingly made, used, or caused to

be made or used, a false record or statement

to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or

approved by the Government; or

(C) They knowingly made, used, or caused to

be made or used, false records or statements

to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation

to pay or transmit money or property to the

Government.

The Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action further allege that

“Plaintiff was harassed, retaliated, discriminated against, and

fired from his job in retaliation for his efforts to investigate

the false claims described herein” in violation of 31 U.S.C. §

3730(h) and California Government Code § 12653. The Seventh

Cause of Action in the SAC is against Foster Farms Dairy and Does

1-5 for “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” and

alleges that Plaintiff’s firing was in violation of the public

policies of the Federal False Claims Act, the California False

Claims Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and 2

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 7 of 14
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

8

Cal.Code Regulations § 7287.8, and the Equal Opportunity Act, 29

C.F.R. Pt. 1604.11, and EEOC Directives 915.003. The SAC prays

for compensatory, general and punitive damages and injunctive

relief with regard to the First through Fourth Causes of Action. 

With regard to the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action, the SAC

prays for “two times plaintiff’s lost earnings”, for compensatory

damages, “including lost earning capacity, and medical and other

expenses”, general and punitive damages, for an “order

reinstating plaintiff with full seniority, including seniority

for the time he has lost”. The Seventh Cause of Action prays for

compensatory damages, “including lost income and lost earning

capacity, and medical and other expenses”, for general and

punitive damages; for “Defendant verify answer”; and for

“appropriate restitution be made because the CONSTITUTION DEMANDS

it to be done”. 

The TAC filed on November 13, 2006, without prior leave of

court, now alleges that Plaintiff brings this action for

employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII and that

plaintiff is acting as “relator ... on behalf of the United

States of America and individually”. The SAC also alleges that

jurisdiction is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and alleges with regard

to jurisdiction and venue:

Plaintiff action seeks to remedy Defendant

wrongful conduct through the following claims

for relief: violations of Federal

Whistleblowers Protection Act contained in 31

U.S.C.A. Section 3730(h); violations of

California Whistleblowers Protection Act;

wrongful discharge ... in violation of public

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 8 of 14
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

9

policy; breach of implied and/or express

contracts entered into by Defendant and

Plaintiff; negligence; and punitive

damages....

The TAC alleges essentially the same causes of action as alleged

in the SAC with, for the most part, minor changes. For instance,

the Second Cause of Action for Director’s and Supervisor’s

Liability, the allegation that Defendants were on notice of

racial discrimination and bigotry toward “African American race

and his friends [sic] national origin” is now that Defendants

were on notice of racial discrimination and bigotry toward

“minorities”. In the Third Cause of Action for Intentional

Infliction of Emotional Distress, Plaintiff adds to the

allegation that Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff emotional

and physical distress in his support of equal rights “and the

support and safety concern of the public”. The TAC also includes

a new prayer for relief interspersed with the prayer for relief

set forth in the SAC. The new prayer for relief prays for

judgment:

a. Declaring the acts and practices

complained of herein are in violation of the

whistleblower protections contained in 31

U.S.C.A. § 3730(h);

b. Enjoining and permanently restraining the

violations of the whistleblower protections

contained in 31 U.S.C.A. § 3730(h);

c. Directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in

a position he would have held but for

Defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory

treatment of Plaintiff, and to make Plaintiff

whole for all earnings and benefits he would

have received but for Defendant’s

discriminatory and retaliatory treatment

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 9 of 14
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

10

including but not limited to wages (including

front and back pay) and benefits and any and

all other relief afforded under the

whistleblower protections contained in 31

U.S.C.A. § 3730(h);

d. Directing Defendant to pay Plaintiff

general and compensatory damages in an amount

to be proven at trial;

e. Directing Defendant to pay Plaintiff

special compensatory damages including but

not limited to actual and anticipated wage

loss in an amount to be proven at trial;

f. Directing Defendant to pay the cost of

this action together with costs and

reasonable attorney’s fees;

g. Declaring Defendant’s acts against

Plaintiff as willful, wanton, and malicious,

and directing Defendant pay Plaintiff

punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

trial; and

h. Granting such other and further relief as

this court deems proper.

i. Determine restitution in a manner thats

[sic] appropriate and enter the appropriate

restitution order.

j. Demand jury trial on all issues triable

by jury.

The TAC also sets forth the prayer for relief alleged in the SAC. 

The only change is that the injunctive relief prayed for in

connection with the Fourth Cause of Action includes “Native

Americans” and “Asians” and includes “all appropriate counties

where employed through Foster Farms”. 

However, although the First Cause of Action in the TAC

continues to allege that Plaintiff was terminated in February

2005 after Plaintiff was subpoenaed for a deposition in a

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 10 of 14
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

11

discrimination case against Foster Farms Dairy and disclosed “a

few of the discriminatory action(s) of Foster Farms and 28 other

related issues that Foster Farms did not want disclosed”, the

First Cause of Action includes some significantly different

allegations from those set forth in the FAC or the SAC. 

Specifically, the TAC alleges:

9. Plaintiff alleges that one or more of

defendants’ employment procedures, and or

practice and or policies of each defendant

has had a discriminatory effect and or impact

upon him for the last fifteen years. 

Plaintiff bases this conclusion, among

others, on the findings written in the

reports from investigations and conclusions

written in reports upon completion of those

investigations. [¶] Plaintiff also bases this

conclusion on a foundation of facts that

exist from documents, creating paper trail

and or first hand knowledge and or real

stories from real people with affidavits who

have suffered harm from Dennis Bettencourt,

Foster Farms Dairy and or Ron Foster and or

real stories attached with affidavits from

real people explaining how Dennis

Bettancourt, Foster Farms Dairy and or Ron

Foster violate federal law and or state law

and our CONSTITUTION. One, of the many

illegal on-going, re-occurring illegal

subject matters existing within Foster

operations is of PUBLIC concern. For

economical gain Foster will disregard concern

for the PUBLIC and violate laws protecting

WE, THE PEOPLE. These ‘evil ways’ at Foster

exist even though a percentage of the PUBLIC

is harmed and even when our CONSTITUTION,

Federal Law, and or State Las is being

violated. Easily proven at TRIAL.

10. Plaintiff alleges that during his

employment the following occurred frequently;

subject to falsely accusing minorities,

wrongfully disciplining minorities and even

wrongfully terminating minorities and

occasionally Teamsters Union Representative

BOB QUINTANA and Foster Farms Human Resource

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 11 of 14
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

12

LUIS MIRANDA would be fully aware of the

entire scheme and do nothing, for they have

their own agenda and all shall be proven at

trial. [¶] The latter part of [Plaintiff’s]

employment at the FOSTER FARMS DAIRY INC. he

was subject to threats, racial comments,

epithets and slurs at the workplace,

including, but not limited to the following: 

‘NIGGER LOVER’ and ‘Fuck You Tanto’. 

Although Defendants decided not to challenge Plaintiff’s

failure to obtain prior permission to file the SAC and filed an

Answer to the SAC, Defendants argue that the TAC should be

stricken:

... If Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is

not stricken and Plaintiff is not reminded

that he must follow the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, he will continue filing

amended complaints throughout the litigation

as evidenced by Plaintiff filing [the TAC]

just two weeks after filing [the SAC]. Such

action confuses the issues and hinders the

trial and litigation process. Proceeding

with a clear operative complaint will

streamline the ultimate resolution of the

case.

Plaintiff’s propensity for amending his

complaint with trivial and non-substantive

information also prejudices Defendants

because they are required to incur the time

and expense of filing amended answers

virtually identical to prior responses. To

the extent Plaintiff adds new facts or

identifies new persons in his complaints that

should have been included in the original or

first amended complaint, such action also

disrupts the discovery process - which is

under way. Defendants will be prejudiced and

deprived of the opportunity to present facts

or evidence that they would have offered in

defense if Plaintiff continues adding new

information throughout the litigation.

Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED. As noted, the

Scheduling Order filed on October 23, 2006 stated that the

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 12 of 14
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

13

“parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to the pleadings

at this time.” Despite this representation, Plaintiff has twice

filed amended pleadings. The Scheduling Order specifically

provides:

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the court in

the efficient administration of this case,

all counsel are directed to familiarize

themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of

the Eastern District of California, and keep

abreast of any amendments thereto.

Even though Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per, he is required to

familiarize himself and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, and any court orders. Rule 83-183(a), Local Rules

of Practice, provides in pertinent part:

Any individual representing himself ...

without an attorney is bound by the Federal

Rules of Civil ... Procedure and by these

Local Rules. All obligations placed on

‘counsel’ by these Local Rules apply to

individuals appearing in propria persona. 

Failure to comply therewith may be ground for

dismissal ... or any other sanction

appropriate under these rules.

Rule 15(a) very clearly requires prior leave of court to file an

amended complaint after the defendants file a responsive

pleading, i.e., an Answer. Although discretion exists to allow

this action to proceed under the TAC, discretion will not be so

exercised here because of Plaintiff’s repeated violation of Rule

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 13 of 14
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

14

15(a). Striking the TAC as inoperative and of no legal effect is

necessary to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. If Plaintiff

desires to proceed with the allegations set forth in the stricken

TAC, Plaintiff must file a properly noticed and supported motion

for leave to amend as required by these rules.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to

strike the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) is GRANTED and the

Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 34) is STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 14 of 14