Rivera v. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC et al

Filing 63

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Granting 54 Motion to Strike and Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss.(pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANTHONY T. RIVERA, Case No. 16-cv-00304-PJH Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, et al., 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS Dkt. No. 54 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the court is Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC’s (“LLNS”) motion 13 14 to dismiss or strike portions of plaintiff Anthony Rivera’s amended complaint. Dkt. 54. 15 The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, 16 the hearing set for September 28, 2016 is hereby VACATED. Having read the parties’ 17 papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and 18 good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to strike in part, and 19 DENIES the motion to dismiss as moot. On June 2, 2016, the court dismissed with prejudice Rivera’s first claim for 20 21 wrongful discharge as time-barred, and dismissed LLNS as a defendant in this case. 22 Dkt. 38. Under this order, Rivera was not permitted to re-plead his wrongful discharge 23 claim or to again name LLNS as a defendant in his amended complaint.1 Dkt. 38. The 24 court must therefore DENY the motion to dismiss, as moot. The claim against LLNS is 25 already dismissed, and LLNS is terminated as a defendant, per the court’s prior order. 26 27 28 1 The law has been clear for years now that re-pleading dismissed claims is not necessary to preserve appeal rights. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). 1 2 In light of the above, the motion to strike must be GRANTED, in relevant part. The court hereby STRIKES the following portions of the amended complaint (Dkt. 51): 3 (1) From the case caption, the words “Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC” 4 (i.e., the naming of LLNS as a defendant); 5 (2) From paragraph 1, the words “against Lawrence Livermore National Security 6 LLC, for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy”; 7 (3) From paragraph 5, the word “defendant”; 8 (4) The entirety of paragraphs 42–52 (the first cause of action). Because the factual allegations in paragraphs 11 through 36 potentially relate to Rivera’s 10 non-dismissed claims, the court will DENY the motion to strike these paragraphs from the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 amended complaint. 12 The clerk shall terminate LLNS as a defendant in this matter. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: September 19, 2016 15 16 17 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?