Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation

Background

Yanira Gonzalez initially filed this employment case without a lawyer. After several rounds of motions and amended complaints, the court appointed counsel. The operative pleading was Gonzalez’s Fourth Amended Complaint.

Earlier orders allowed Gonzalez to assert specified claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and a federal Equal Pay Act claim. The court also instructed that she could not add claims that had not been expressly authorized.

Gonzalez’s Fourth Amended Complaint included the permitted gender-discrimination and retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and an Equal Pay Act claim. It also included a second Equal Pay Act claim for retaliation and a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim alleging failure to prevent discrimination. Apttus argued that these two additional claims violated the court’s earlier orders and asked the court to dismiss the entire case with prejudice or, alternatively, strike the two claims. Apttus also argued that the Equal Pay Act retaliation claim was untimely because it did not relate back to the original complaint. Gonzalez argued that the mistake was harmless and that the retaliation claim related back.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Apttus’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court to remove redundant, immaterial, improper, or scandalous material from a pleading, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court found that Claims Two and Four were “redundant” and “impertinent” under Rule 12(f) because they were new claims outside the scope of the claims the court had authorized. Although the court had previously allowed Gonzalez substantial opportunities to amend, it had expressly limited the claims that could be asserted in the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints. The court therefore declined to revisit those limits and struck Claims Two and Four with prejudice.

The court declined to impose the more severe sanction of dismissing the entire case with prejudice. It explained that terminating sanctions are reserved for extreme circumstances, such as a pattern of disregarding court orders and deceptive litigation tactics. The court found that Gonzalez’s failure to follow the instructions had resulted from a lack of understanding of the law or the court’s instructions and had been in good faith. It also found that the addition of Claims Two and Four did not reflect bad faith and that counsel could reasonably have believed they were following the spirit of the court’s instructions.

Disposition

Judge Spero’s order granted Apttus’s motion as to the request to strike Claims Two and Four, striking those claims with prejudice. The motion was otherwise denied. The court also cautioned Gonzalez’s counsel to follow the court’s instructions strictly and seek clarification when needed.