Mohideen v. Calnet, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 46 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; granting 50 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Calnet's motion for summary judgment as to Mohideen's 1st and 3rd causes of action is denied. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/6/2015. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MOHAMMED MOHIDEEN, an
individual,

11
12
13
14

17

CALNET, INC., a Maryland
corporation,

20
21

[Doc. No. 38]

Defendants. GRANTING MOTIONS TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
CALNET, INC., a Maryland
corporation,

[Doc. Nos. 46, 50]

Counterclaimant,

18
19

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

v.

15
16

CASE NO. 13cv799-MMA (NLS)

v.
MOHAMMED MOHIDEEN, an
individual,
Counter-Defendant.

22
23

Plaintiff Mohammed Mohideen brings this employment discrimination action

24

against Defendant Calnet, Inc. (“Calnet”), alleging, inter alia, wrongful termination.

25

[Doc. No. 5.] Calnet counterclaims for computer fraud and abuse. [Doc. No. 10.] Calnet

26
27

-1-

13cv799

1

now moves for summary judgment on Mohideen’s first and third causes of action. [Doc.

2

No. 38.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Calnet’s motion.
BACKGROUND1

3
4

Calnet is a privately-held Maryland corporation that provides intelligence,

5

technology, and security services to the United States government. Kaleem Shah

6

(“Shah”) is the president and chief executive officer of Calnet. Mohideen is a former

7

senior vice president of Calnet. Calnet fired Mohideen on May 10, 2011. As reflected by

8

the claims brought in the FAC, it is disputed why Mohideen was fired from Calnet.

9

Mohideen alleges it was because he uncovered fraud and other wrongdoing by Calnet.

10

Calnet counterclaims that Mohideen unlawfully accessed Calnet’s computer systems. In

11

any event, Mohideen began work as vice president of operations at another contractor,

12

American Systems Group, in August 2011. Mohideen brought this lawsuit against Shah

13

and Calnet in April 2013.

14

On October 20, 2014, Shah and Calnet filed a motion for summary judgment as to

15

Mohideen’s first cause of action for retaliation in violation of California’s Fair

16

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), third cause of action for wrongful termination

17

in violation of public policy, and sixth cause of action for violation of California labor

18

code section 1050. [Doc. No. 38.] On November 11, 2014, the Court granted the parties’

19

joint motion to dismiss Mohideen’s sixth cause of action, and terminated Shah as a party

20

to this lawsuit. [Doc. No. 45.] Only Calnet’s motion for summary adjudication of

21

Mohideen’s first and third causes of action remains.

22

LEGAL STANDARD

23

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of

24

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

25

P. 56(a). The purpose of summary judgment “is to isolate and dispose of factually

26
27

1

These facts are not reasonably in dispute unless noted otherwise.

-2-

13cv799

1

unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The

2

moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion,

3

and identifying portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

4

admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact.

5

Id. at 323. The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the

6

light most favorable to the non-moving party. T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.

7

Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987).

8
9
10

DISCUSSION
I. Motions to File Documents Under Seal
Mohideen moves the Court for leave to file under seal an unredacted copy of his

11

opposition brief, separate statement of undisputed facts, and exhibits 20-37 in support

12

of his opposition. [Doc. No. 46.] Mohideen has filed copies of his opposition and

13

separate statement of undisputed facts on the public docket with information regarding

14

his compensation and a confidential incident report redacted, pursuant to the Court’s

15

protective order. [See Doc. Nos. 17, 49.] The proposed exhibits contain confidential

16

deposition transcripts and other documents also marked as confidential pursuant to the

17

protective order. [Doc. No. 46.] Calnet moves the Court for leave to file an

18

unredacted copy of its reply to Mohideen’s separate statement of undisputed facts under

19

seal. [Doc. No. 50.]

20

Upon due consideration of parties’ motions and the protective order in this case,

21

the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the above documents [Doc. Nos.

22

47, 48, 51] be filed under seal.

23

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

24

Calnet moves for summary adjudication of Mohideen’s first cause of action for

25

retaliation under FEHA and third cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of

26

public policy on grounds that Mohideen has no damages. [Doc. No. 38.] Mohideen does

27

not allege non-economic damages in the FAC, and Calnet argues that Mohideen cannot
-3-

13cv799

1

prove he suffered economic harm. [Id.] Mohideen opposes on grounds that proof of

2

recoverable economic damages is not necessary to satisfy the “harm” element of his

3

claims. [Doc. No. 49.]

4

Under California law, a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public

5

policy requires: “(1) an employer-employee relationship, (2) the employer terminated the

6

plaintiff’s employment, (3) the termination was substantially motivated by a violation of

7

public policy, and (4) the discharge caused the plaintiff harm.” Yau v. Santa Margarita

8

Ford, Inc., 229 Cal. App. 4th 144, 154 (2014). To establish a prima facie claim for

9

retaliation under California’s FEHA, a plaintiff must show: “that he engaged in a

10

protected activity, his employer subjected him to adverse employment action, and there is

11

a causal link between the protected activity and the employer’s action.” Yanowitz v.

12

L’Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123, 1146 (2005).

13

Calnet argues that Mohideen’s claims fail because he “cannot prove the element of

14

‘harm.’” [Doc. No. 38.] Calnet contends that this is so because “there is no evidence that

15

[Mohideen] suffered any recoverable economic harm,” Mohideen has not “pled a right to

16

recover any emotional distress or other non-economic damages,” and he “does not have a

17

right to recover punitive damages or attorney’s fees until he can establish a prima facie

18

case for his claims.” [Doc. No. 52.]

19

Calnet conflates the essential element of harm with the remedy of economic

20

damages. A prayer for relief is not part of a cause of action. See generally 35A C.J.S.

21

Federal Civil Procedure § 307 (“[T]he prayer of a complaint forms no part of the cause of

22

action or claim, and while it may be considered to help determine the nature of the cause

23

of action or claim and the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled, it is not controlling. …

24

The relief a plaintiff seeks and the claims it asserts are conceptually distinct components

25

of a complaint.”); see also, Kinnee v. Shack, Inc., 2008 WL 1995458, at *3 (D. Or. May

26

6, 2008) (noting “prayer for relief is no part of the cause of action and the parties are

27

entitled to such relief as the pleadings make out”) (quoting Johnson v. Granquist, 191 F.
-4-

13cv799

1

Supp. 591, 591 (D. Or. 1961)); United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 101 F. Supp.

2

298, 301 (S.D. Cal. 1951) (“[U]ltimately the relief that a litigant is entitled to is the relief

3

which the complaint sets forth, regardless of the prayer. That is why we say in California

4

pleading the prayer is not part of the complaint.”). Calnet cites no case law to support the

5

proposition that damages are an essential element of Mohideen’s claims for wrongful

6

termination in violation of public policy or retaliation under FEHA. And indeed, there is

7

no case law to suggest that Mohideen cannot satisfy the elements of harm in these claims

8

just because he fails to plead non-economic damages.

9

The California Supreme Court first recognized the tort of wrongful termination in

10

violation of public policy in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., where it held that “an

11

employer may not coerce compliance with … unlawful directions by discharging an

12

employee who refuses to follow such an order.” 610 P.2d 1330, 1337 (1980). It is

13

apparent that in most cases, the element of harm is satisfied just by an employee’s

14

discharge from his or her position. See Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 960 P.2d 1046,

15

1048 (1998) (“[A]t-will employees may recover tort damages from their employers if

16

they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy.”);

17

Haney v. Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 121 Cal. App. 4th 623, 643 (2004) (plaintiff’s

18

allegation that he was terminated for refusing to engage in fraud sufficient to state claim

19

for wrongful termination in violation of public policy).

20

For claims under FEHA, the requirement of an adverse employment action is met

21

when an employer discharges an employee “because the person has opposed any

22

practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified,

23

or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940(h); see Brooks

24

v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting termination constitutes

25

adverse employment action).

26
27

Although Calnet argues that “Plaintiff concedes that he does not make a claim for
emotional distress damages and is therefore not entitled to that type of non-monetary
-5-

13cv799

1

relief,” the type of damages Mohideen is seeking has no bearing on whether he can

2

satisfy the elements of his claims. [Doc. No. 52.] As explained above, Mohideen’s

3

claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and retaliation under FEHA

4

only require that Mohideen show harm, and harm in this context is established by

5

Mohideen’s having allegedly been wrongfully discharged. Damages are not an element

6

of a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy or retaliation under

7

FEHA. Even if damages were an element of Mohideen’s claims, there are genuine issues

8

of material fact as to the size of Mohideen’s salary at Calnet when he was terminated, and

9

whether he incurred economic damages during his brief period of unemployment. [Doc.

10

No. 52-1.] These types of questions are the province of the jury, and not the proper

11

subject of a motion for summary judgment.

12

CONCLUSION

13

The only remaining issue raised by Calnet on this motion is whether Mohideen can

14

show evidence of harm. The Court finds that he can, and that the issue of damages is for

15

a jury to decide. Accordingly, Calnet’s motion for summary judgment as to Mohideen’s

16

first and third causes of action is DENIED.2

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: February 6, 2015

20

Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

As the Court need not look further than the FAC to resolve this motion, Mohideen’s objections to
Calnet exhibits 5, 6, and 7, and the parties’ various objections to the proposed undisputed material facts,
are DENIED AS MOOT.

-6-

13cv799