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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
