Schafer v. Safeway Stores, Inc., No. 3:2008cv00299 - Document 23 (D. Nev. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that D's 2 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. FURTH ORD that P's 13 Motion for Order Granting Leave to Serve and File Amended Complaint is DENIED. Clk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian E. Sandoval on 2/4/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT O F NEVADA 8 JOHN A.SCHAFER, 6) flléhirltiff, 10 v. 11 SAFEW AY STORES,INC.,a Delaware corporation, 12 Defendant. l3 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 3:08-cv-00299-BES-VPC ORDER Currently before the Coud is DefendantSafeway lnc 's(' ùsafeway'')Motionto Dism iss . 16 (#2)filed on May29,2008.1 PlaintiffJohn Schafer(i'plaintifr')filed an Oppositionto Motion 17 to Dismiss(#9)onJune 30,2008,and Safewayfiled a Reply (#10)onJuly 14,2008. 18 Schafer v. Safeway Stores, Inc. Also before the Coud is Plainti/'s Motion forO rderGranting Leave to Serve and File 19 AmendedComplaint(#13),filedonAugustz7,2008.SafewayfiledanOppositionto Plainti ff's 20 MotionforLeaveto FileAmended Complaint(#16)onNovember24,2008,and Plaintifffiled Doc. 23 21 a Reply (#19)on December11,2008. 22 BACKGROUND 23 O n May 5,2008,Plaintif filed anAmended Com plaintin the FirstJudicialDistrictCourt 24 of the State of Nevada alleging that he had been constructively term inated from his 25 employmentatSafewayon October11,2006. (Notice to FederalCourtofRemovalofCivil 26 Action Under28 U.S.C.j 1441(#1)atExhibitA,p.5).Plaintiffhad beenemployed asafood 27 clerk at Safeway for severalyears prior to his alleged term ination Ld=. According to the . 28 1) l Safeway wasim properly nam ed asSafeway Storeslncom orated. (M otion toDismiss(//2)at , Dockets.Justia.com 1 Am ended Com plaint,Plainti ff'' term inated his em ploymentbecause no reasonable person in 2 Plaintifrs position could have been expected to tolerate the conditions facing Plaintis as a 3 resultofthe wrongfulconductofhisemployer' 'Ld. -.Specifically,PlaintifrsAmendedComplaint . 4 alleges thattwo ofSafeway's policies im paired his abili ty to work and violated his rightto a 5 safe workenvironment Ld-.Thefi rstpolicywasa requirementthatclerksproceedtothefront . 6 ofthe store when assistance was needed ata check-outIine. Plaintiffrefers to this policy as 7 the d'race to the frontf''and claim s that itviolated Nevada Iaw . The second policy was a 8 requirem entto use a manualforkliftinstead ofan electric forkli ftinside the store. Plainti l 9 claimsthatthis policy impaired hisabilityto perform hisjob dutiesbecause he had d'multiple 10 physicalconditions''thatm ade using the m anualforklih di#icult Ld=. 1l As a result ofthese policies, Plaintiffasserts that he was constructively term inated . . 12 withoutjustcause in violation of a 'union contractofwhich Plaintifr'was 'ia third party 13 beneficiary.'' $=.The ' 'union contract''referred to by Plaintiffprovided thathe could onlybe . 14 terminatedforjustcause.''!#. Plaintifffurtherassedsthat''ltlhe same contractincorporated 15 principlesofanti-discriminationincluding(discrimination)basedupondisability ''IJ..According . . 16 to Plaintil,Safeway furtherbreached the lsunion contract''because Safeway's two policies 17 discrim inated againsthim iibased upon his disability ' J . 1. . 18 Plaintiff'sAm ended Com plaintincludes two claim sforrelief First,Plainti; claim sthat 19 Safeway 'd tortiously discharged''him from his em ploym ent''in violation ofim portantNevada . 20 public policy as aforem entioned ' 'Ld=. Second,PlaintiffclaimsthatSafeway ''breached its . 21 contract with Plaintiffas aforem entioned, entitling Plaintif to recoverthe aforementioned 22 dam ages and eguitable relief,' 'J.j-v 23 ANALYSIS 24 1. M otion to Dism iss 25 Thepurpose ofa motiontodismiss underRule 12(b)(6)isto testthe legalsuficiency 26 ofthe com plaint Navarro v.Block,250 F.3d 729,732 (9th Cir.2001).DismissalunderRul e . 27 12(b)(6)isproperoniywhenacomplaintexhibitseithera'lackofa cognizable legaltheoryor 28 the absence ofsufficientfacts alleged undera cognizable legaltheory ''Balistreriv.Pacifica . 2 1 Police Deot,,9O1 F .2d 696,699 (9th Ci r.1990).The Coud mustacceptastrue aIImaterial 2 allegationsinthe com plaintaswellasallreasonable inferencesthatmaybe drawn from such 3 allegations. LSO .Ltd.v.Stroh,205 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Ci r.2000),The Courtmustalso 4 construe the allegations ofthe com plaintin the Iightmostfavorable to the nonmoving party . 5 Shwarz v.Uni ted States,234 F 3d 428,435 (9th Cir.2000). The Coud may onl y granta . 6 motiontodism issunderRule 12(b)(6)ifitiscertainthatthe plaintiffwillnotbeentitledto relief 7 underany setoffacts thatcould be proven underthe allegations ofthe complaint Cahillv. . 8 Libertv Mut.Ins.Co.,80 F.3d 336,338 (9th Cir.1996). 9 Al though a court's review on a 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss is generally iilim i ted to the 10 contents ofthe complaint,''the coud m ay also considerdocum entsattached to the com plaint, l1 docum ents incorporated by reference in the com plaint, ormattersofjudi cialnotice without 12 convedingthemotionintoamotionforsumm aryjudgment.SeeDurninuv.FirstBostonCorD., 13 815 F.2d 1265,1267 (9th Cir.1987),A documentdtmaybe incorporated byreference into a 14 com plaintifthe plaintif refers extensively to the docum entorthe documentform s the basis 15 ofPlaintil's claim .'' U.S.v,Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903,908 (9thCir.2003), 16 Attached to Safeway's Motion to Dismiss (#2)is a collective bargaining agreement 17 between Safeway and United Food and CommercialW orkers Union Local711(referred to 18 herein as the $$CBA''). The CBA is incorporated by reference in Plaintiff's Amended 19 Com plaint.z In addition, the CBA iscrucialto Plainti ff's breach ofcontractclaim A s such,the 20 Coud willconsiderthe CBA in ruling on Safeway's m otion to dism iss, w ithoutconveding the . 21 motionto one forsummaryjudgment.See Ritchie,342 F.3d at908. 22 Safeway states thatitis entitled to an orderdism issing the claim s asserted againstit 23 because Piaintiff'sclaims are preem pted by section 301 ofthe LaborM anagementRelations 24 Act(dLMRA''). (Defendant'sMotionto Dismiss (#2)at3).According to Safeway, the LM RA 25 preempts Plaintil'scase because he hasasserted state Iaw claimsthatdepend upon analysis 26 ofthe CBA to resolve them As such,because these two claim s are governed by the CBA , . 27 :!il 2 TheCBA isrefep'edtointheAmendedComplaintastheu.unigncontract.,. (NoticetoFederal CourtofRem ovalofCivllAction under28 U S.C.j1441(#1)atExhlbi tA.pp.2-3). . 3 1 they are com pletely preem pted by federalIaw and dism issalis proper. In response,Plaintiff 2 concedesthathisbreachofcontractclaim forviolationofthejustcause provisionofthe CBA 3 ispreempted.(Oppositionto Motionto Dismiss(#9)at2).In addition, Plaintiffconcedesthat 4 his claim for breach of contract ofthe anti-discrim ination provisions ofthe CBA are also 5 preem pted. .I J= However,Plaintiffallegesthatpartsofhisclaimsdo notreferencethe CBA, 6 but,ratherdda policy within the store thatwas contrary to com pany w ide safety policy,' - (i. . 7 M oreover,Plaintiffarguesthatthose claim sare notpreem pted becausethey invoke Nevada's 8 public policy on discrim ination and occupationalsafety Ld= at3. Based onthispublicpolicy 9 argum ent,Plaintil argues thathis case should notbe dism issed. . 10 Section 301 ofthe LMIRA states that'Isluits forviolation ofcontracts between an 1l em ployerand a Iabororganization representing em ployees in an industryaffecting com merce 12 ...maybe broughtinanydistrictcoud ofthe UnitedStateshavingjurisdictionofthe parties '' 13 29 U.S.C.j 185(a).The Supreme Coud has heldthatj 301expresses '.afederalpolicythat 14 thesubstantive Iaw toapplyinj3O1cases'isfederalIaw , which the courts m ustfashionfrom , 15 the policy ofournationalIaborIaws. '''Allis-chalmers corn.v.Lueck,471 U S.202,220,105 - . 16 S.Ct.1904,85 L.Ed.2d206 (lg8sltquotingTextile W orkersv Lincoln M ills,353 U.S.448, 77 . 17 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed. 2d 972 (1957)). As such,section 301 has been understood ' 'as a 18 congressionalmandate to the federalcourts to fashion a body offederalcom m on Iaw to be 19 used to address disputes arising outoflaborcontracts '' t1.t tAsa resultofthisbroad federal . . 20 m andate,the Suprem e courthas explained, the 'preem ptive force of section 301 is so 21 powerfulas to di splace entirely any state cause ofaction forviolation ofcontracts betw een an 22 em ployerand a labororganization '''Burnside v.KiewitPac Corn.,491 F.3d 1053, . . 1059 (9th 23 Cir.2007). 24 Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit has held that section 3O1 ofthe LM IRA 25 preem pts state Iaw claim sthatare ''substantially dependentupon anaylsis ofthe term s ofan 26 agreementmade betweenthe partiesina laborcontractll''Allis-chalmers,471U.S.at220. . 27 ''M ore specifically, LMRA 301 wil loperate to preempta state-law claim whose resolution 28 depends upon the m eaning ofa CBA .' Adkins v.M ireles, 526 F. 3d 531,539 (9thCir.2008). 4 l Thus,even ifthe plaintifs have notalleged a breach ofcontractin theircom plaint, the claim 2 can stillbe preem pted ifitis''eithergrounded in the provisionsofthe laborcontractorrequires 3 interpretation ofit.''3 Burnside, 491 F.3d at1059. 4 In this m atter,the Coud finds thatPlaintiff's breach ofcontractclaim is preem pted by 5 section 301. As noted in the Am ended Com plaint, this cause ofaction relates directly to a 6 breach ofthe CBA. Specifically,Plainti ffalleges thatSafeway breached the CBA by (1) 7 term inating him withoutjustcause ,and (2)discriminating againsthim inviolation oftheanti8 discrim ination provisions. Moreover,in his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (#9),Plaintiff 9 concedes thatthis claim is preem pted. Because this claim is preem pted by federalIaw , 10 Safeway is entitled to an orderdism issing the claim because Plaintifffailed to exhaustthe 11 grievance procedurescontained inthe CBA See Jacksonv.SouthernCali fornia GasCo., 881 . 12 F.2d 638,640 (9th Cir.1989), 13 In addition to the breach ofcontractclaim , Plaintiffalso broughta cause ofaction for 14 tortious discharge.Plaintiff'stodious discharge claim relieson an alleged violation ofNevada 15 public policy. Specifically,Plainti ffasseds thatSafeway's policy ofrequiring him to proceed 16 to a checkoutstand im m ediately when called violates ''Nevada Iaw concerning occupational 17 safetyand heal th.''ln addition,the Amended Com plaintstatesthatSafeway intendedtocause 18 Plaintiff 'dharm in the workplace' 'by requiring him to use a m anualforklift in the store . 19 According to Plaintis,the 'irefusalto allow him to use the electric IX violated Nevada O SHA 20 law.''(Oppositionto Motion to Dismiss (#9)at2). 21 ''(N)oteverydispute concerning employment,ortangentially involving a provisionofa 22 collective-bargaining agreement,ispre-empted byj 3O1orotherprovisionsofthefederal 23 laborIaw.'Allis-chalmers,471 U.S.at211 However,preem ption extends beyond claim sfor . 24 breach of contract. Jackson, 881 F.2d at643. ''Allis-chalm ers m akes clearthatdthe pre- 25 emptive effectofj 3O1m ustextend beyond suits alleging contractviolations'to encompass 26 suits understate tortIaw that'would frustrate the federalIabor-contractschem e established 27 28 a AccordingtotheNinthCircuit.thisprevelpsaplaintifffrom evading1herequirementsof section3Ol'ûbyrglabelingtheircontractclaimsasclalmsfortortitpsbreaehofeontract(?rsomeother state cause ofactlon.and thuselevate form oversubstance ''Ld .,(lnterflalquotationsom ltted). . 5 1 in 5 301.''Ld-u(quoting Allis-chalmers!471 U.S,at209-10).Thus,''state claims thatrequire 2 interpretation ofa collective bargaining agreem ent. . . ordepend substantially upon analysis 3 of a collective bargaining agreem ent's terms . . . are preem pted.'' I J.u(internalcitations . 4 omitted). 5 Asnoted,Plaintilclaim sthathisalleged term ination violated Nevada'spublicpolicyon 6 occupationalhealth and safety. i1A claim thatdischarge violates public policy 'is preem pted 7 ...ifi tis notbased on any genuine state public policy, ori fitis bound up with interpretation 8 of the collective bargaining agreement and fudhers no state policy independent of the 9 em ploymentrelationship.'' $. . . 10 The Nevada Suprem e Courthas held thatd 'the public policy ofthis state favors safe 11 employmentpractices and the protection ofthe heal th and safety ofworkers on the job '' . 12 W estern States M ineralCorn.v.Jones,107 Nev. 704,719,819 P.2d 206,216 (Nev.1991). 13 As a resul t,''itis violative ofpublic policy foran em ployerto dism iss an em ployee forrefusing 14 to work under conditions unreasonably dangerous to the em ployee ' ' Ld=. Despite this, 15 Plaintiff'stodiousdischarge claim is preem pted because Plainti ffhasfailed to allege anyfacts . 16 thatshow a violation of Nevada's public policy on occupationalhealth and safety. In this 17 regard,the two policies cited by Plaintiffdid notcreate an ''unreasonably dangerous''working 18 condition forPlaintiE 4 Rather, itappears thatPlaintiffis arguing thatusing the m anualforkliq 19 atworkandbeingrequiredto rushtothefrontofthestorewhencalledwassubjectivelyunsafe 20 forhim because ofhisphysicalim pairm ents Forinstance,Plaintifstatesthatt lDefendantwas . 21 aware thatPlaintiffhad m ultiple physicalconditions thatim paired his ability to work with the 22 m anualforkliftand nevedheless required him to do so ' '(NoticetoFederalCourtofRemoval . 23 ofCivilAction Under28 U.S.C . 51441(#1)atExhi bitA,p.5).However,sucha claim sounds 24 25 4In com parisons in W estern States,Jonestiled suitagainsthisemployer W estern Statesofor tortigusdisçharge afterhe was tired forrefusing to work around cyanide while,he had an unhealed 26 surylcalinclsion.LcL NevadaIaw expressly b:prohibitsemployersfrom requiring employees-togo or belnany ...placeofemploymentwhlchisnotsafeand heathful,.. andthecourtheldthatthejurycould ,7 havefoundthatW estern Statesviolated thisprovision 1Ja.lnthismatter.Plaintiffarguesthatbecause ofhisphysicalimpainnents,Safewayviolatedhissafeworkingenviromnentbynotallowinghim touse . 2g an electrlcjackon thestorefloor.ln addition-PlaintiffarguesthatSafeway violatedNevada1aw by requiring liim to stl ?p whathewasdoing and go to thefrontofthe storewhen called to help with checkoutlines. Neltherofthese factualassertionsrequired Plaintiffto be in aplace ofemploym ent which w as unreasonably dangerous. 6 1 in disability discrim ination, and notin a violation of Nevada's public policy on occupational 2 health and safety.Thus, because this claim is preem pted, Safeway is enti tled to an order 3 dism issing the claim because Plaintifffailed to exhaustthe grievance procedures contained 4 in the CBA.5 5 Based on the foregoing, Safeway isentitled to anorderdism issing the claims asserted 6 againsti tin Plaintiff's Am ended Complaint. 7 ll. M otion to Am end 8 ln addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffalso filed a M otion forO rderGranting Leave to 9 Serveand FileAmendedComplaint(#13).AccordingtoPlaintil, he isseeking leaveto amend 10 his com plaint in orderto add a cause ofaction fortoftious intederence w i th prospective 11 econom icadvantage against W illiam Hornbook, Sam uelCoolbaughand UFCW LocalUnion 12 711.Ld-. Plaintif statesthatthe tortiousinterference dwasdone bythe Union and Hornbook 13 throughthe m annerin which these Defendants interfaced w i th DefendantSafeway regarding 14 the electricjack and the run-to-the-frontpolicy.''LcL at2 Sam uelCoolbaugh,according to 15 Plaintiff,isliablebecause''lhlecreatedtherace-to-the-frontpolicyandenforceditcontraryto . 16 com pany-wide policy ' 'Ld-u . 17 . ln response,Safeway argues that Plainti frs m otion should be denied because the 18 iiamendm ent is futile''and the claim l'fails against aIIofthese defendants '' (Defendant's . 19 OppositiontoPlaintifrsMotionforLeavetoFileAmendedComplaint(#16)at1) Inthisregard, . 20 SafewaystatesthatPlaintifftesti fied athisdepositionthaton June 15, 2006,PlaintiWwentout 21 on Ieave to have carpaltunnelsurgery and nevercam e to work atSafeway afterthat . IJ=.at 22 4.Instead,Plaintiffuresigned ina Ietterto m anagm ent,withouteverdiscussing hisresignation 23 withSafeway.'$=.Moreover,Pl aintifftestifiedthatthe'Yole reason''he resignedwasbecause . 24 25 jI n hisOpposition,Plaintiffclaim sthathisbreach oftheanti- discrimination grovisionsofthe :6 CBA alsoviolatespublicpolicy.However,even thoughNevadalaw prohibitsdiscrim lnation, failejtoexhaujth1sadministrativerqmediejasrequiredbybothfederyland N evadalaw .SpecPil acin tliyff ti al 27 t'clalmsinvolvlngemploymentdiscrlminatlonrarejtobeadministratlvelyexhaustedpriortoseeking, readr ns the districtcourts'' Palm erv.State. 106Nev.151.153,787P 2d8037804(Nev.1990).As rtes ofstihi ,a :!El 1) n em ployeeclaim ing discrim ination i'isobligated to filqa claim with NERC and to have t ha t a ge nc y a d jiudi claim beforeitcanpropertybebroughtindlstrictcourt.s Ld=.Theu exhaustion ofadministrat veca ret meetbq dles is necessary to preventthe courts from being inundated with frivolous claim s.-' LIt. . . . . 7 . 1 he was required to use a manualjackinthe store ratherthan anelectricjack. 1. 4.However, 2 the prohibition ofusing an electricjack in the store was an ''industrywide policy,''Ld As a . . - .. 3 resultofthe foregoingtestim ony,SafewayarguesthatPlaintil cannotstate a claim fortortious 4 interferencewithprospectiveeconom icadvantageagainstHornbrook,the unionorcoolbaugh. 5 Rule 15(a)(2)statesthatapartym ayùamenditspleadingonlywiththeopposingpady's 6 w ritten consentorthe court's Ieave.' 'Fed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2).The rulefurtherprovidesthat: 7 ''The coud should freely give Ieave when justice so requires,''J1.sn applying this rule,the 8 NinthCircuithasstatedthatdlrlule 15'spolicyoffavoringamendmentstopleadingsshouldbe . 9 applied w ith Sextrem e Iiberality.'''DCD Pronram s.Ltd.v Lei nhton,833 F.2d 183,186(9thCir. . 10 1987).''ThisIiberalityingrantingIeavetoamend isnotdependentonwhethertheamendment 11 willadd causesofaction orpadies.'Ld.. However,al thoughthecourtshould freelygiveIeave 12 to am end,a districtcourtmay deny such Ieave due to 'undue delay, bad faith ordilatory 13 m otive on the pad ofthe m ovant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 14 previously allowed,undue prejudice to the opposing party by vidue of allowance ofthe 15 amendment,(and)futilityofamendment.''Leadsinner.lnc.v.BMG MusicPub.,512 F.3d 522, 16 532 (9th Cir.zoo8ltquoting Foman v.Davis,371U.S.178,182 (1962)). 17 ' $Itis wellestablished thatleave to amend a (pleading!need notbe granted when 1B am endm entwould be futile.'' Hines v.Ci tv ofAlbanv, 542 F.supp. zd 218,224 (N.D.N.Y. 19 2008). The party ddopposing an amendmenthas the burden ofestablishing thatIeave to 20 am end would be futile.' Ld-u''W here no colorable groundsexistto supporta claim ordefense, . 21 a motion to amend would be futile.'' Ld= In general, no colorable grounds exist if the . 22 am endment is not sulicient to w ithstand a motion to dism iss or a m otion for sum m ary 23 judgment. Johnson v.American Airlines.Inc.,834 F.2d 721,724 (9th Cir 1987). ,see also . 24 G abrielson v.M ontnom erv W ard & Co.,785 F 2d 762,766 (9th Ci r.1986)(stating thatanan . 25 amendmentisfutile i fit''could bedefeated on motionforsummaryjudgmenf). 26 As noted in the foregoing,Plaintif seeks Ieave to am end to add additionalpadies and 27 an additionalcause ofaction fortortious intereference with prospective econom ic advantage . 28 The foliowing elem ents m ustbe proven to establish the tortofintefference w i th prospective economicadvantage:$(1)a prospective contractualrelationship betweenthe plaintiffand a 8 1 third party;(2)the defendant's knowledge orthis prospective relationship' ,( 3)the intentto 2 harm theplainti fbypreventingtherelationship;(4)theabsenceofprivilegeorjustificationby 3 the defendant' ,and (5)actualharm to the plaintiffas a resultofthe defendant's conduct'' . 4 Consolidated Generator-Nevada. Inc.v.Cum m insEngine Co..Inc., 114 Nev.1304,1311, 971 5 P.2d 1251,1255(Nev.1998). 6 ln this m atter, the Coud finds that Plaintiff's proposed am endm entw ould be futile 7 because itwouldfailtosurvive eithera motionto dism issoramotionforsummaryjudgment . 8 In Plaintil's Proposed Am ended Com plaint, he alleges thatCoolbaugh intedered w ith his 9 prospective econom ic advantage by creating the 'race-to-the-frontpolicy.' '(MotionforOrder 10 Granting Leave to Sewe and File Amended Complaint(#13)atExhibit1, p.4). However, 11 Plaintif failsto assed any factualallegations relating to how the im plem entation ofthis policy 12 by Coolbaugh was an intentionalactdesigned to harm Plainti ffs relationship with Safeway . 13 Specifically,this was a store wide policy that applied to alIclerks in the Safeway store to 14 preventcustom ers from com plaining aboutlong check-outlines ln addition,this cause of . 15 actionagainstCoolbaughwould notsurvivea motionforsum maryjudgmentbecausePlainti ff 16 testifiedthathe resignedfrom Safewaysolelybecausehewasnotableto use anelectricjack 17 inside the store 18 . Plaintiffsclaim forintentionalintederencew i thprospective econom icadvantage isaiso 19 futile againstthe unionand Hornbook Inthis regard,Plaintiff's Proposed Am ended Com plaint . 20 statesthat'DefendantUnion and Hornbookintentionallyorrecklesslyinteffered with Plaintifrs 21 prospective econom ic advantage by depriving Plaintiffofan opportunity to succeed on his 22 grievances .. '' Id. Sim ilarto Coolbaugh, Plaintiffhas failed to state how this alleged . . 23 interference was an intentionalact by the union and Hornbook designed to disrupt his 24 relationship with Safeway Rather,itappears to be a generalcomplaintagainstthe handling . 25 ofPlaintiff's grievance pfocedurewiththe union. As a resul t,thisclaim failsto assertsufficient 26 factualailegations to survive a m otion to dism iss In addition,this claim would notsurvive a . 27 motionforsummaryjudgmentbecauseofPlaintiff'stestimonythatheresignedfrom Safeway 28 solelybecause he could notuse an electricjackinthe store . Thus,based on the foregoing, any amendm entto the com plaintto add a ciaim for 9 1 todiousintederencewithprospective econom icadvantage againstW illiam Hornbook, Sam ual 2 Coolbaugh and UFCW LocalUnion 711would be futile, Plaintiff's M otion forO rderGfanting 3 Leave to Serve and File Amended Complaint(#13)isdenied. ' 4 CONCLUSION 5 Forthe foregoing reasons,Defendant'sMotionto Dismiss (#2)isGRANTED 6 Itis fudherordered thatPlaintiff's M otion forOrderGranting Leave to Serve and File . 7 Am ended Com plaintis DENIED 8 9 10 . The Clerkofthe Courtshallenterjudgmentaccordingly. 45* Dated this ' day ofFebruary, 2009. 11 12 13 UGlted tates DistrictJudge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
