Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated

Background

Kenneth Lenk filed this third lawsuit against his former employer, Monolithic Power Systems Incorporated (MPS). He also sued Maurice Sciammas and added Sacks, Ricketts, and Case LLP (SRC), the law firm that represented MPS and Sciammas in Lenk’s two earlier lawsuits. The case was transferred from the District of Arizona to the Northern District of California. The court denied Lenk’s request to amend his complaint, dismissed the claims against the defendants without leave to amend, and entered judgment for the defendants on May 29, 2020.

Lenk then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 seeking to alter or amend the judgment, vacate it, and file an amended complaint. Rule 59(e) allows a party to seek a change to a judgment within 28 days, but the court explained that this remedy is generally limited to clear legal or factual errors, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.

Court’s Analysis

Lenk argued that an email from counsel for MPS and Sciammas about meeting and conferring over a planned request for attorney’s fees and costs was new evidence of harassment and retaliation. The court found that Lenk offered no evidence showing that the email was motivated by his LinkedIn post or served an improper purpose. It also found that the email had no bearing on the legal defects that led to dismissal of his complaint.

Lenk argued that the court had made legal or factual errors in dismissing his retaliation claim under Title VII and his civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As to the retaliation claim, the court had previously ruled that Lenk could not relitigate constructive discharge and that the defendants’ ordinary defense of a lawsuit did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court had already considered and distinguished the authorities Lenk cited, so his disagreement with the court’s analysis did not justify changing the judgment.

As to the § 1981 claim, the court had found that Lenk did not allege that he belonged to a racial minority or that he suffered discrimination because of race. Lenk argued that his allegations were sufficient even though he identified himself as a Caucasian male, and he sought to rely on a new assertion that MPS was 90 percent Chinese. The court held that Rule 59 was not the proper vehicle for presenting arguments or evidence that could have been offered before judgment. The court also noted that Lenk did not address the separate legal basis supporting dismissal of the § 1981 claim against SRC.

Lenk further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The court noted that Lenk had not alleged that he was fired for being gay or transgender and had not explained how Bostock affected his claims. The court therefore found no basis for relief under that decision.

Finally, Lenk argued that California law supported adding claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court found that Lenk had never asked for permission to add those claims and that his proposed amended complaint did not contain them. The court therefore found no basis to change the judgment on that ground.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Lenk’s Rule 59 motion. The order left the judgment for MPS, Sciammas, and SRC in place and did not allow Lenk to file an amended complaint. The order terminated the motion listed as ECF 72.