Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Edmundson
Defendant
Orville Meaux
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant
Professional Flight Attendants Association
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORVILLE MEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; ERIC

EDMUNDSON, individually and as an

employee of Northwest Airlines,

Inc.,; PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1- 20,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3733 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT

EDMUNDSON'S MOTION

TO DISMISS

Defendant Eric Edmundson moves to dismiss all claims against

him, or, in the alterative, to stay them pending the resolution of

the bankruptcy proceeding of Defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc. 

Plaintiff Orville Meaux opposes this motion. The matter was heard

on April 28, 2006. Having considered all of the papers filed by

the parties and oral argument on the motion, the Court grants

Defendant Edmundson's motion.

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

BACKGROUND

In June, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant

Northwest and Does 1 through 10 in San Francisco Superior Court. 

The complaint alleged causes of action for breach of an implied-infact contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and

fair dealing, violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

and violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act

(FEHA). According to Plaintiff, Defendant Northwest harassed,

discriminated against, disciplined and, on January 26, 2004,

terminated him without cause, because of his race. Plaintiff also

alleged that he was retaliated against for engaging in protected

activity, namely, previously filing a discrimination suit against

Defendant Northwest. Although Defendant Edmundson was not named as

a defendant, Plaintiff alleged that "Eric Edmundson was a Base

Administrator for defendant, plaintiff's supervisor, and an agent

and or employee of defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc., and in doing

the acts complained of herein was acting in the course and scope 

of his capacity in such agency or employment." Bowman Dec., 

Ex. A ¶ 8.

Defendant Northwest removed Plaintiff's complaint to this

Court, where it was assigned number C 04-4444 CW. Defendant

Northwest filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's contract claims on

the ground that they were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA),

45 U.S.C. § 151. Before the motion was heard, Plaintiff stipulated

to dismiss his contract claims. Plaintiff filed his Amended

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief for Employment

Discrimination. After Defendant Northwest filed its answer, a case

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice that he had not

served Defendant Northwest with the summons and complaint because

it had filed for bankruptcy and thus Plaintiff's action against it

was automatically stayed pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy

Code.

2Local Rule 3-12 provides that when a party knows or learns

that an action is, or may be, related to a action already pending

in this district, that party must promptly file a notice of related

cases. 

3

management conference was held and deadlines were set: additional

parties or claims were to be added by March 4, 2005; dispositive

motions were to be heard by September 30, 2005.

No additional parties were added. Defendant Northwest noticed

its motion for summary judgment to be heard on September 30, 2005. 

Plaintiff's opposition was due on September 9, 2005, but he failed

to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition.

On September 14, 2005, Defendant Northwest filed a highly

publicized bankruptcy petition. On September 15, 2005, Plaintiff

filed this complaint against Defendant Northwest,1 Defendant

Edmundson and the Professional Flight Attendants Association,

without filing a notice of related cases pursuant to Local Rule 3-

12.2 He brought claims for violations of the RLA, wrongful

discharge in violation of public policy and breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Unlike his first

complaint, this complaint did not allege employment discrimination,

but the facts in the two complaints are largely the same. Both

cases stem from Plaintiff's discipline and termination that related

to a customer complaint. This case was originally assigned to

Judge Illston.

On September 20, 2005, due to Plaintiff's failure to file an

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

opposition to Defendant Northwest's motion for summary judgment in

the first case, this Court issued an order vacating the September

30, 2005 hearing and requiring Plaintiff to show cause why his case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On September 27,

2005, the Court issued an order, in light of Defendant Northwest's

bankruptcy, conditionally closing the case and vacating the order

to show cause. 

In March, 2006, after Defendant Edmundson filed this motion to

dismiss, he filed a motion to relate Plaintiff's cases. On

March 28, 2006, the Court signed the Related Case Order, and this

case was reassigned to the undersigned.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be

denied unless it is “clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.” Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th

Cir. 2002), citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506

(2002). All material allegations in the complaint will be taken as

true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple,

concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are

required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). These rules “do not require a

claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his

claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it

rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

When granting a motion to dismiss, a court is generally

required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request to

amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether amendment

would be futile, a court examines whether the complaint could be

amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal “without

contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original complaint.” 

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Leave to amend should be liberally granted, but an amended

complaint cannot allege facts inconsistent with the challenged

pleading. Id. at 296-97. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant Edmundson argues that Plaintiff's claims against him

are void because they violate the bankruptcy stay and are barred by

the rule against claim splitting. He further argues that he cannot

be individually liable as a matter of law for any of Plaintiff's

asserted claims; that Plaintiff has failed to identify a public

policy in his claim for wrongful discharge; and that Plaintiff's

claims for wrongful discharge and breach of the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing are preempted by the RLA. 

I. Bankruptcy Stay

Defendant Edmundson argues that Plaintiff's complaint against

him should be dismissed because, like the second-filed complaint in

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Bihari v DDJ Capital Management, 306 B.R. 336 (E.D. Cal. 2004), it

is merely an attempt to avoid the bankruptcy stay issued in

Plaintiff's first action. In Bihari, the plaintiff filed a

complaint against his employer alleging that he had not been

compensated for his overtime work. While that action was pending,

the employer filed a bankruptcy petition, resulting in a stay of

the action. The plaintiff then filed a new complaint against the

employer's shareholders, directors and officers, again alleging

that he was not compensated for overtime work. Id. at 337. After

reviewing the two complaints, the court found that the plaintiff's

second complaint was "an attempt to avoid the stay issued in the

first action." Id. at 338. Because there was such identity

between the employer and the defendants in the second action, the

court further found that the employer was the real party defendant

in the second action and thus a judgment against its shareholders,

directors and officers would, in effect, be a judgment or finding

against the employer. Allowing the second action to proceed would

defeat the purpose of a bankruptcy stay, and thus the court found

the second complaint violated the stay and was void. See id. ("The

law in this circuit is that violations of the stay are void.")

(quoting In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 571, 574 (9th Cir. 1992)). The

action was dismissed with prejudice to amending the complaint in

the second action, but without prejudice to the plaintiff's pursuit

of his claims in the bankruptcy litigation and in the first action. 

 Defendant Edmundson notes that, although the claims in the

two suits may not be the same, Plaintiff's claims in the second

suit arise out of the same set of facts as those in the first suit. 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

He argues that the present case closely parallels Bihari and thus

Plaintiff's claims again him should be dismissed. Plaintiff's

attempt to distinguish Bihari because, here, Defendant Edmundson is

a "mere employee" is not convincing. As Defendant Edmundson notes,

the authorities cited in his moving papers do not turn on the rank

of the individual defendants, but rather on the identity of the

interests between them and the debtor corporation. Defendant

Edmundson was a manager, who, Plaintiff alleged in his first

action, was acting in the course and scope of his employment; a

judgment against Defendant Edmundson could be a judgment against

Defendant Northwest. 

It may not be as clear as it was in Bihari that Plaintiff's

filing of the second action was solely an attempt to avoid the

stay. Plaintiff notes that Defendant Northwest did not serve

notice of the bankruptcy until five days after he filed his second

complaint. Regardless of when Plaintiff was served official notice

of the bankruptcy, Plaintiff's filing of this action the day after

Defendant Northwest filed for bankruptcy was a violation of the

bankruptcy stay. Plaintiff does not deny knowing that Defendant

Northwest filed for bankruptcy the day before he filed this action. 

Nor does he explain why he did not oppose the summary judgment

motion in the first action. He does not explain why he missed the

March 4, 2005 deadline to add parties or claims in his first action

and why he filed another action, instead of seeking leave to amend

his complaint to add additional parties. Because Plaintiff's

filing of this action violated the bankruptcy stay, that filing is 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

void and the claims against Defendant Edmundson are dismissed. 

Bihari, 306 B.R. at 339. 

II. Claim Splitting

Defendant Edmundson also argues that the second suit, which

names him, is barred by the rule against claim splitting. As noted

above, both actions arise from Plaintiff's discipline and

termination by Defendant Edmundson; the same underlying facts

support the claims in both actions. 

Plaintiff does not deny that he split his claims. Rather he

points out that the "doctrine against splitting a cause of action

is, in part, a rule of judicial economy that is imposed in

particular cases as a matter of discretion. It can be waived." In

re Wilson, 104 B.R. 303, 304 (E.D. Cal. 1989). Plaintiff further

notes that a court has discretion to order consolidation, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, instead of dismissal. And

he requests that the Court consolidate his two cases for purposes

of trial and judgment. But Plaintiff's argument, that

consolidation is appropriate because dismissal of this case would

be an unwarranted remedy for a "technical error in pleading," is

not persuasive.

The court in Wilson did not consolidate the plaintiff's two

actions because factors in the case made it "inconvenient or

inappropriate to consolidate." Id. at 305. In dismissing the

duplicative action, the court noted, "The doctrine against

splitting applies with its greatest force where, as in the case at

bar, multiple lawsuits on the same cause of action are pending in 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3The Court, however, notes that Plaintiff's claim for breach

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is preempted

by the RLA. See, e.g., Milne Employees Ass'n v. Sun Carrier, Inc., 960 F.2d 1401, 1411 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff's claim for

wrongful termination also fails because Defendant Edmundson cannot

be held individually liable for Plaintiff's alleged termination in

violation of airline safety public policy. See, e.g., Jacobs v.

Universal Development Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 692 (1997).

9

the same court simultaneously." Id. Defendant Edmundson contends

that is the case here. He points to factors in this case that make

consolidation inappropriate: the deadline to add parties or claims

in Plaintiff's first case was March 4, 2005 and, instead of seeking

leave to amend his complaint, Plaintiff just filed another action;

had Plaintiff timely brought Defendant Edmundson into the first

case, Defendant Northwest's bankruptcy stay may have extended to

Plaintiff's entire claim. While Defendant Edmundson notes factors

that make consolidation inappropriate, Plaintiff fails to provide

any factor that would make dismissal inappropriate. Plaintiff's

unexplained abandonment of his first action and then subsequent

bringing of this action based on the same underlying facts as the

first action is not, as Plaintiff contends, a technical error in

pleading. Like in Wilson, the factors in this case make

consolidation inappropriate. The Court finds that Plaintiff's

claim-splitting provides another reason to dismiss the claims

against Defendant Edmundson.

III. Defendant Edmundson's Remaining Arguments

Because the Court grants Defendant Edmundson's motion to

dismiss based on the two grounds discussed above, the Court need

not discuss Defendant Edmundson's remaining arguments.3

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant

Edmundson's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 25). The Court dismisses

with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Edmundson in

this action. Thus, any claims against Defendant Edmundson in

Plaintiff's amended complaint that Plaintiff is seeking leave to

file are dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal is without

prejudice to Plaintiff's pursuit of his claims in the bankruptcy

litigation or in the first action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/6/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 60 Filed 07/06/06 Page 10 of 10