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
Formulaic Recitation Of The Elements Of Civil Conspiracy Are Insufficient
Post number 5320
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPACkgWq and at https://lnkd.in/gsaxij7D, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Hassan Fayad v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., No. 2:25-cv-10930, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division (March 24, 2026) Plaintiff Hassan Fayad, the owner of several businesses providing transportation, diagnostics, testing, and therapy services, regularly billed insurance companies for these services, was arrested and tried for fraud, convicted, had the conviction overruled and sued the insurers and prosecutors he found responsible.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
By January 2020, Liberty Mutual, Progressive, Allstate, and Esurance suspected fraudulent activity and filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Attorney General (MDAG). The insurers alleged that Fayad and others billed Michigan auto insurance policies for profit without actually providing medically ...
Federal Courts Have Limited Jurisdiction
When all Parties Refuse Removal There is No Jurisdiction
Post number 5319
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gp6Z-JYY, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gAum322y and at https://lnkd.in/gRPzCjmt and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Beth Mayhew and Matthew Mayhew v. Vladimir Sadovyh, et al., No. 2:26-CV-04029-WJE, United States District Court, W.D. Missouri (April 6, 2026) Mayhew was involved in a trailer-truck accident with Vladimir Sadovyh, who was employed by Nova First, LLC and Globex Transport, Inc. Both companies owned the tractor-trailer involved.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Chubb and Mohave Transportation Insurance Company jointly issued an insurance policy covering Nova First, Globex, and Sadovyh, with EMA Risk Services acting as a third-party administrator.
Beth Mayhew sued Nova First, Globex, and Sadovyh for negligence in Missouri state court, and following a jury trial, a nuclear judgment was awarded to the Mayhews totaling ...
Ordinary Negligence is What Medical Professi0nal Liability Insures
Post number 5319
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gxKjDztW and at https://lnkd.in/gnxkxS42, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Sexual Conduct Exclusion Doesn’t Apply When Doctor Negligently Uses His Own Sperm
In Integris Insurance Company v. Narendra B. Tohan, No. AC 47222, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (April 7, 2026) Integris Insurance Company, a medical professional liability insurer, initiated a declaratory action to determine its duty to defend and indemnify Narendra B. Tohan, a physician licensed in Connecticut, in a separate negligence action alleging medical misconduct.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2019, Kayla Suprynowicz and Reilly Flaherty (civil action plaintiffs), who were strangers for most of their lives, discovered through a genetic testing company that they are half siblings.
INSURANCE POLICY
The policy defines “Professional Services” in relevant part as “any professional medical services within the ...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 7 – April 1, 2026
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5314
Posted on April 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th 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/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
No One is Above the Law – Not Even a Police Officer
Police Officer Convicted for Fraud in Reporting an Accident Affirmed
Police Officer Should never Lie about Results of Chase
In State Of Ohio v. Anthony Holmes, No. 115123, 2026-Ohio-736, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (March 5, 2026) a police officer appealed criminal conviction as a result of lies about a high speed chase.
Read the following article and the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ZIFL-04-01-2026-1.pdf...
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 7 – April 1, 2026
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Post number 5314
Posted on April 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th 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/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
No One is Above the Law – Not Even a Police Officer
Police Officer Convicted for Fraud in Reporting an Accident Affirmed
Police Officer Should never Lie about Results of Chase
In State Of Ohio v. Anthony Holmes, No. 115123, 2026-Ohio-736, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (March 5, 2026) a police officer appealed criminal conviction as a result of lies about a high speed chase.
Read the following article and the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ZIFL-04-01-2026-1.pdf...
Posted on March 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Insurance Fraud, a Way to Reduce Violent Crime
Post number 5313
A Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story helps 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.
She Taught Her Customers The Swoop And Squat:
Recently the California Insurance Department’s Fraud Division arrested a young woman in Los Angeles County for operating an insurance fraud school. She advertised her classes in the “Penny Saver” an advertising sheet distributed free to the public and a print version of Facebook, X Craig’s list. She had operated for several years teaching methods of committing automobile insurance fraud. Only after a police officer enrolled in one of her classes was she arrested.
Her defense ...
