Nguyen v. CTS Electronics Manufacturing Solutions Inc.
301 F.R.D. 337
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- CTS Electronics Manufacturing Solutions Inc. employed Nguyen in the stockroom until 2011 and Le via a staffing agency from 2011 onward; both allege race- and gender-related harassment and termination in retaliation.
- Nguyen circulated a complaint to human resources alleging improper conduct by CTS personnel, leading to his termination, while Le experienced repeated demeaning conduct and restricted breaks before termination.
- Plaintiffs asserted eight causes of action initially; the First Amended Complaint (FAC) retained some but not all claims and added CTS-only defendants; CTS removed the case to federal court based on diversity.
- CTS moved to dismiss or strike the second cause of action for public-policy violations as duplicative, to strike redundant material under Rule 12(f), and to require a more definite statement under Rule 12(e); CTS also moved to sever the FAC under Rules 20 and 21.
- The court granted in part CTS’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike duplicative portions of the second cause of action, denied mootness/definiteness aspects, and granted severance of the FAC, with leave to amend the remaining public-policy claims.
- The court noted that some FEHA/gender-discrimination allegations were not duplicative and that the remaining conduct beyond termination could support a non-redundant public-policy claim; it ordered separate amended complaints within 21 days if plaintiffs chose to amend; the state court’s prior demurrer ruling was given effect for severance purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second public-policy claim is duplicative of the first | Nguyen/Le contend it adds distinct public-policy theories. | CTS argues second claim is redundant and duplicative. | Grant in part to strike the duplicative portions. |
| Whether to strike or dismiss the second claim under Rule 12(f) or 12(b)(6) | Second claim clarifies public-policy violations beyond termination. | Claim is largely redundant and should be struck or dismissed. | Rule 12(f) strike granted in part; 12(b)(6) dismissal denied as moot. |
| Whether to require a more definite statement for the second claim | Second claim should be understood as distinct. | Statement is vague and duplicative. | Declined as moot after partial strike; denied as moot for definite statement. |
| Whether to sever the FAC into separate actions | Joinder promotes efficiency; claims arise from same overall conduct. | Joinder should be severed due to transactional/ common factual questions. | Grant CTS’s motion to sever; state-court demurrer ruling given effect; separate amended complaints allowed. |
| Whether removal and state court rulings affect severance | N/A | N/A | Court followed comity and Jenkins/Butner principles to sever per state court decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) (12(f) motions aim to avoid litigating spurious issues before trial)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for facially plausible claims)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (factual content must support plausible inference of liability)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (discretion to require more definite statement; disfavored rule 12(e))
- Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 1996) (law on treating state court orders after removal; comity)
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Track Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974) (principles of comity and equal treatment after removal)