Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd.
- Joseph Spero
- 3:23-cv-01161
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bonazza v. MUFG Union Bank, Judge Spero allowed Bonazza’s employment-discrimination claim past initial screening and ordered service.
Michael Alan Bonazza may continue litigating his employment-discrimination claim against MUFG Union Bank, which must be served with the case papers; Bonazza is also subject to filing restrictions and possible sanctions.
What happened
Michael Alan Bonazza sued MUFG Union Bank, alleging that the bank did not offer him permanent employment after a temporary contract because he is a white male. The case was transferred from Hawaii to the Northern District of California.
The court reviewed the complaint under the screening rules for people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that Bonazza appeared to have completed the required process with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and that his discrimination claim was sufficient to proceed at this stage.
The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint and order on MUFG Union Bank. Judge Spero also warned Bonazza not to file further documents without a reasonable, good-faith basis and said violations could lead to sanctions or loss of electronic filing privileges.
The detailed version
- Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd. · No. 3:23-cv-01161
- Joseph Spero
- Apr. 10, 2023
Background
The case was transferred to the Northern District of California from the District of Hawaii under a federal venue statute. The Hawaii court had allowed Michael Alan Bonazza to proceed without paying the filing fee but had conducted only a limited review focused on whether venue was proper. The Northern District therefore reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening for claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief.
According to the complaint, Bonazza was temporarily hired under a contract by MUFG Union Bank for work performed between June and September 2022. He alleged that the bank declined to exercise an option to offer him permanent employment because he is a white male. He also alleged that he was effectively told that long-term jobs paying above the cost of living were being reserved for women and minorities.
Screening and administrative exhaustion
The court agreed with the Hawaii court that the complaint asserted employment-discrimination claims based on the bank’s failure to offer Bonazza a permanent position. Based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge and right-to-sue letter attached to the complaint, the court found that Bonazza appeared to have timely filed a charge alleging race and sex discrimination and had exhausted the required administrative process.
Ruling
The court found that Bonazza’s claim was sufficient to survive the initial screening under Section 1915. The ruling did not prevent MUFG Union Bank from later challenging the complaint through a properly noticed motion to dismiss. The clerk was instructed to issue a summons, and the U.S. Marshal was ordered to serve MUFG Union Bank with the complaint, summons, and order.
The court also ordered Bonazza not to file additional documents unless he had a reasonable and good-faith belief that the filing was permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules. The court noted that he had filed ten documents during the preceding week, including documents about possible settlement amounts and technology-related commentary. It warned that failing to comply could result in sanctions and possibly revocation of his electronic filing privileges. Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.