Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
813 F. Supp. 2d 1167
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- Hardin, Wal-Mart employee, sues Wal-Mart and Does 1–100 alleging multiple state and federal claims, including FEHA, ADA, and California Civil Code § 51 and 17200; TAC adds Cox and Ruth Hardin as defendants/plaintiffs.
- Cox, Wal-Mart assistant manager at same store, is alleged to have harassed Hardin; Ruth Hardin is alleged to be a beneficiary of Wal-Mart's health insurance.
- Case removed to federal court on diversity grounds; after amendments, TAC lists fourteen causes of action; later an attempted fifteenth is stricken as improper addition.
- Court grants leave to amend initially but later denies leave to cure deficiencies for certain claims; extensive Rule 12(b)(6) and exhaustion analysis ensue.
- Defendant moves to dismiss and strike; court ultimately dismisses specific claims and COBs (Cox claims and Ruth’s claims) and strikes improper amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder of Cox as a defendant under § 1447(e) | Cox is necessary to adjudicate claims against Wal-Mart. | Cox is not needed; joinder would destroy diversity and leave Wal-Mart able to satisfy judgments. | Joinder denied; Cox not a necessary party; no complete relief issue. |
| FEHA exhaustion and subject matter jurisdiction over late claims | DFEH delays cured exhaustion defect; TAC should be considered; jurisdiction now exists. | Late administrative charges cannot retroactively cure exhaustion. | Exhaustion defect cured; subject matter jurisdiction exists; TAC considered. |
| Survival of causes 7, 9, 12, and 14 (promissory misrepresentation, assault, third-party beneficiary contract, elder abuse) | All four claims should proceed on pleadings and supporting facts. | Each claim fails as pled or legally unsupported. | These four causes of action are dismissed; no leave to amend. |
| Amendment to Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 103) and motion to strike | Additional amendment should be considered; consent not required for the amendment approved by court. | Fourth amendment without consent/null | The improper pleading (Doc. 103) is stricken; no further amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; not every allegation ids entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (framing standard for pleading to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (burden to plead entitlement to relief; flexible standards)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (general allegations must embrace specific facts necessary to support claims)
- Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend for pleading defects; futility standard)