Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Richard Fimbres v. Pacific Maritime Association

December 10, 2012

TITLE RICHARD FIMBRES
v.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants Richard Fimbres, Pro Se Jason Steele

Proceedings: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DIMISS CASE (FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT) (Docket #27, filed September 28, 2012)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Fimbres, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit in this Court on August 17, 2011. On July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). The FAC names dozens of defendants and asserts thirty-five claims for relief including claims for breach of contract, fraud, unlawful discrimination, and other state law torts.

On September 28, 2012, defendants Pacific Maritime Association ("PMA"), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ("Morgan Lewis"), Clifford D. Sethness, and Jason M. Steele moved to dismiss the FAC. On November 26, 2012, plaintiff filed an opposition, and defendants' replied on December 3, 2012. Defendants' motion is before the Court.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the termination of plaintiff's employment with defendant PMA, and a previous lawsuit filed by plaintiff in the Los Angeles County Superior Court challenging this adverse employment decision. FAC at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he was first employed by PMA as a non-union employee in April 2001, and became a union employee in November 2004. FAC at 9 -- 10. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder in January 2001, and has been hospitalized from time to time due to this condition. FAC at 9 -- 10.

Plaintiff was terminated from employment with PMA on August 16, 2007. FAC at 19. The reason given for his termination was that he violated the union's "70% rule," which states that workers in plaintiff's classification must work in each pay period at least 70% of the average hours of all workers in plaintiff's classification. FAC at 19. According to plaintiff, however, his termination was the result of unlawful disability discrimination. FAC at 85.

In January 2008, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against PMA and other defendants alleging that plaintiff was fired due to his disability and that plaintiff did not receive reasonable accommodations. FAC at 1; Mot. Ex. 1. On January 28, 2009, summary judgment was entered against plaintiff on every cause of action alleged in his complaint. Mot. Ex. 4, Order Granting Summary Judgment, at 7. Plaintiff appealed, and the summary judgment order was affirmed. Mot. Ex. 8.

Plaintiff alleges that fraud, perjury, and other misconduct occurred in connection with his earlier state lawsuit. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that PMA employees committed perjury in deposition testimony. FAC at 58 -- 59. Additionally, plaintiff contends that the defense in the state lawsuit quoted facts out of context in their separate statement of facts supporting their motion for summary judgment, cited to facts in their motion for summary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.