Esquibel v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.

Background

Mark Esquibel filed his first amended complaint while representing himself. He alleged six employment-related claims against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. and Scott Manley: defamation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, violation of California's unfair-competition law, fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of an oral contract. The opinion notes that the amended complaint did not allege claims against Kinder Morgan, Inc., although the defendants moved collectively under the name Kinder Morgan. Esquibel later retained counsel.

Esquibel alleged that Kinder Morgan represented that he was insured while performing company-related driving and pilot-training activities, but that the coverage did not exist or was void. He also alleged racial harassment, opposition to his union-organizing activity, retaliation connected to his reports about corrosion in pipeline equipment, and termination in January 2019. He claimed that Kinder Morgan failed to correct the corrosion problem and may have obtained a government contract renewal using a report that did not disclose the danger.

Legal standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court had to accept properly pleaded facts as true and determine whether they plausibly supported relief. The court also explained that a complaint filed by a person without a lawyer receives a more flexible reading, but still must allege enough facts to identify a valid claim.

Claims dismissed with prejudice

Esquibel conceded that his second claim, under California Labor Code section 226, for failure to provide an accurate wage statement, was time-barred. The court applied a one-year limitations period and concluded that the claim was filed after that period. Because any amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the second cause of action with prejudice.

Esquibel also conceded that his sixth claim, for breach of an oral contract concerning automobile insurance, was time-barred. The alleged insurance agreement arose before an August 2013 accident, and the applicable limitations period was two years. The court therefore dismissed the sixth cause of action with prejudice.

Claims dismissed without prejudice

The court dismissed Esquibel's first claim for defamation without prejudice. Esquibel conceded that he could not presently plead the required elements. The court explained that statements made before his termination would likely be time-barred, but the amended complaint was unclear about when the alleged statements were made. The court therefore allowed amendment for a possible claim based on statements made after January 13, 2019.

The court dismissed the third claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 without prejudice. It concluded that the potential claim was not necessarily time-barred and could be amended if Esquibel alleged facts supporting a claim within the applicable limitations period.

The court dismissed the fourth claim for fraudulent misrepresentation without prejudice. Esquibel proposed amending it as a promissory-fraud claim, based on alleged representations that Kinder Morgan had or would obtain insurance covering injuries incurred during his employment. The court found that amendment would not be futile and would not unfairly prejudice the defendants.

The court also dismissed the fifth claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy without prejudice. Esquibel proposed relying on California Labor Code section 1102.5, which prohibits retaliation against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law-enforcement agency. He argued that Kinder Morgan retaliated against him because it believed he might disclose information about the corrosion problem. The court found that amendment would not be futile and allowed him to assert this theory.

Proposed False Claims Act claim

Esquibel sought to add a claim under the federal False Claims Act based on allegations that Kinder Morgan knowingly ignored the corrosion problem and used a report that falsely omitted the danger in connection with a government contract. The court concluded that the proposed claim arose from the same core facts already described in the amended complaint and granted Esquibel leave to add it.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The second and sixth causes of action were dismissed with prejudice. The first, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action were dismissed without prejudice. Judge Orrick granted Esquibel leave to amend those four claims and add a False Claims Act claim within 20 days.