Esquibel v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.

Background

Defendant Scott Manley moved to dismiss the two claims Mark Esquibel asserted against him in the Third Amended Complaint: wrongful termination in violation of public policy and promissory fraud. The court described Manley as Esquibel’s manager at Kinder Morgan, not his employer.

Claims Against Manley

The court held that Manley could not be liable for Esquibel’s wrongful-termination claim because, under the law cited by the court, only an employer can be liable for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

The court also concluded that Manley could not be liable for promissory fraud based on alleged assurances that Kinder Morgan would provide Esquibel insurance coverage during his employment. The alleged assurances occurred in or around 2008, while Manley did not become Esquibel’s supervisor until 2017. The court stated that there was no way Manley could be liable for that alleged fraud.

Request to Add New Claims

Rather than argue that the two existing claims should continue, Esquibel asked to add new claims against Manley. The proposed claims included alleged eavesdropping under California Penal Code section 632, invasion of privacy, harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the alleged eavesdropping and harassment.

The court treated Esquibel’s opposition as a request for permission to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, despite his failure to use the usual procedure for requesting leave to amend. The court denied that request. It relied on Esquibel’s multiple prior opportunities to amend, the court’s earlier warning that he had one last chance, his failure to explain why the proposed claims had not been raised earlier, and the delay and prejudice to the defendants.

The court also stated that amendment would be futile. It found no indication that Esquibel had completed the required administrative process for a potential harassment claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. It further noted that a separate claim under California Penal Code section 632 has a one-year limitations period and that Esquibel had not provided facts showing when he discovered the alleged eavesdropping.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied Esquibel’s request to amend, granted Manley’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Manley from the case with prejudice. The order did not grant permission to add the proposed new claims.