Failure to Plead a Viable Complaint after Four Tries Stops Everything
Barry Zalma
Oct 27, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guprhUgy and se the full video at https://lnkd.in/grn2aQuA and at https://lnkd.in/gBp9bMMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4650 posts.
Scott Manley moved the USDC to dismiss the two claims plaintiff Mark Esquibel asserted against him in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (“Tameney claim”) and for promissory fraud.
Because Manley was Esquibel’s manager at Kinder Morgan and not his employer, Manley cannot be liable for the Tameney claim as a matter of law. For the same reason, Manley contends that he cannot be liable for promissory fraud resulting from alleged assurances in or around 2008 that Kinder Morgan would provide Esquibel with insurance coverage during his employment. More problematic is that these alleged assurances occurred in 2008 but Manley did not become plaintiff’s supervisor until 2017.
In Mark Esquibel v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-02510-WHO, United States District Court, N.D. California (October 17, 2023) the USDC explained why its patience had been exhausted.
ANALYSIS
Esquibel asked for leave to amend to assert totally new claims against Manley, including eavesdropping in violation of California Penal Code section 632 and invasion of privacy, harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and claims for intentional and negligence infliction of emotional distress based on the alleged eavesdropping and harassment.
Esquibel did not address the standard for granting leave to amend or explain why – despite the multiple opportunities to amend he was given – he failed to allege these claims in any of his prior four complaints. The claims that he seeks to add now – based on eavesdropping in violation of California Penal Code section 632 and systemic harassment and intimidation based on use of racial slurs – rely on factual allegations that were made in this case at its inception.
In the trial judge’s June 2023 Order, Esquibel was “given one last chance to amend.” In that Order, the court explained to Esquibel what facts were missing but were necessary in order to state viable claims. He then filed the The Amended Complaint only to find it denied and Kinder Morgan’s third motion to dismiss allowing the Tameney claim and the promissory fraud claim to proceed.
Given the multiple opportunities Esquibel has had to amend, the “one last chance” warning given, and the significant prejudice caused not only Manley but Kinder Morgan (who repeatedly and successfully moved to dismiss, resulting in the court’s narrowing of the claims left at issue) by Esquibel’s dilatory tactics and attempts to plead yet more claims based on facts known since the inception of this litigation, further leave to amend was denied. There is simply no excuse for Esquibel sitting on these claims. There has been undue delay and dilatory conduct, causing significant prejudice to defendants.
Esquibel’s piecemeal approach to his pleadings and seeming inability or unwillingness to fully plead his claims despite the Court’s Orders and defendants pointing out the multiple deficiencies in his claims is unacceptable. Construing his opposition to the motion to dismiss as a properly noticed motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint with wholly new claims against Manley (and logically against Kinder Morgan), the motion was denied. Defendant Manley’s motion to dismiss was granted and the litigation stopped.
ZALMA OPINION
Some judges have the patience of Job with litigants and allow them multiple opportunities to find a way to plead a viable cause of action. The judge in this case gave the plaintiff three tries and warned Esquibel that the last order was his “last chance.” Ignoring the warning Esquibel tried a new way to allege a case that had nothing to do with his first three tries. His failure ended the court’s patience and the order was dismissed. Why the court did not sanction Esquibel under Rule 11 is difficult to understand. Court’s need to control their calendar and not be so patient.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
