Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys. Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-03791-BLF |
| Parties | KENNETH LENK, Plaintiff, v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATED; MAURICE SCIAMMAS; AND SACKS, RICKETTS, AND CASE LLP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
[Re: ECF 31, 51]
Plaintiff Kenneth Lenk ("Lenk") filed this lawsuit on March 26, 2018, asserting claims against his former employer, Monolithic Power Systems, Incorporated ("MPS"); his former supervisor at MPS, Maurice Sciammas ("Sciammas"); and the law firm that represented MPS and Sciammas in prior litigation between the parties, Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP ("SRC"). Before the Court are a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Defendants MPS and Sciammas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and a motion for leave to amend filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Lenk ("Lenk") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The motion to dismiss has been taken under submission for decision without oral argument. See Order Submitting Motion, ECF 58. The motion for leave to amend was not noticed for hearing, and the Court finds that motion suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND1, and the motion for leave to amend is DENIED.
SRC has not responded to the complaint. SRC SHALL file a Status Report on or before February 24, 2020.
This is the third lawsuit that Lenk, proceeding pro se, has filed against his former employer, MPS. The Court summarizes the earlier lawsuits before addressing the facts alleged in the present suit.
In March 2015, Lenk filed suit against MPS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Lenk I"), alleging wrongful constructive termination of his employment and related claims under federal and state law. See Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01148-NC. He filed a first amended complaint as of right and a second amended complaint with leave of court. See FAC, ECF 35 in Lenk I; SAC, ECF 54 in Lenk I.
Lenk alleged that he began working for MPS as a marketing director in March 2012, reporting to Sciammas. SAC ¶ 8, ECF 54 in Lenk I. Lenk claimed that he enjoyed normal employment until early 2013, when he began to suffer adverse employment actions, including non-payment of a bonus, non-payment of business expenses, harassment, and reduction of duties. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Lenk believed he was constructively discharged as of March 14, 2013. Id. ¶ 11. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granted MPS's motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. See Order Granting in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 70 in Lenk I; Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Lenk's State Law Claims, ECF 80 in Lenk I. Judge Cousins thereafter granted MPS's motion to dismiss Lenk's third amended complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment for MPS and against Lenk in March 2016. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss the TAC, ECF 87 in Lenk I; Judgment, ECF 88 in Lenk I.
In May 2016, Lenk filed a second suit against MPS in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Lenk II"), again alleging wrongful constructive discharge.See Lenk II. The second suit also named as a defendant Lenk's former supervisor, Sciammas. See id. Lenk alleged that he was hired by MPS as a marketing manager in March 2012, and that he experienced normal employment through December 2012. See Compl. ¶¶ 8-11, ECF 1 in Lenk II. He claimed that in December 2012, he filed a complaint against his former employer, Freescale Semiconductor, after which "there was an abrupt and significant change of attitude from MPS and manager Sciammas toward Plaintiff." Id. ¶¶ 13-15. Lenk alleged that he began to suffer adverse employment actions, including non-payment of a bonus, non-payment of business expenses, harassment by Sciammas, and reduction in duties. Id. ¶ 17. Those adverse actions allegedly culminated in Lenk's constructive discharge. Id. ¶ 35. Lenk II initially was assigned to Judge Cousins, but after Lenk declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. See Order Reassigning Case, ECF 5 in Lenk II.
Lenk asserted two claims against MPS and Sciammas, the first for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and the second for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Compl., ECF 1 in Lenk II. MPS filed a counterclaim seeking repayment of a $34,000 signing bonus that Lenk was contractually obligated to return if he left the company within two years. See Counterclaim, ECF 28 in Lenk II. Both sides filed motions to dismiss, which the Court referred to Judge Cousins for report and recommendation ("R&R"). See Order Referring Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 54 in Lenk II; Order Referring Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim, ECF 67 in Lenk II.
Judge Cousins recommended that this Court dismiss the complaint without leave to amend as barred by res judicata and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim. See R&R on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 71 in Lenk II; R&R to Dismiss Counterclaim, ECF 81 in Lenk II. The Court adopted Judge Cousins' R&Rs. See Orders Adopting R&Rs, ECF 76 & 82 in Lenk II. The Court entered judgment in favor of MPS and Sciammas and against Lenk. See Judgment, ECF 84 in Lenk II. The Court also granted in part MPS's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $17,665.74. See Order Granting In Part, ECF 124 in Lenk II.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, stating that "[t]he district court properly dismissed Lenk's action on the basis of claim preclusionbecause the claims were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the parties or those in privity with them, and the prior action resulted in a final judgment on the merits." Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 754 F. App'x 554, 556 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit also found that "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint because amendment would have been futile." Id.
Lenk III (present case), Case No. 19-cr-03791-BLF
On March 26, 2018, Lenk filed the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Lenk III"). See Compl., ECF 1. He sues MPS and Sciammas, and the law firm that represented them in Lenk I and Lenk II, SRC. See id. The Arizona district court granted Defendants' motion to change venue and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. See Order Granting Motion to Change Venue, ECF 22. The case initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, but after Lenk declined to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction it was randomly reassigned to this Court. See Order Reassigning Case, ECF 27.
Lenk filed a Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455, asserting bias of this Court based on: past legal services provided to MPS by the undersigned's spouse; Lenk's request that the Department of Justice investigate the undersigned; the undersigned's past rulings against Lenk; and the undersigned's alleged general bias against pro se litigants. See Motion for Recusal, ECF 39. This Court directed the Clerk to reassign the recusal motion to another district judge. See Order Directing Clerk, ECF 40. The motion was reassigned to Judge Lucy H. Koh, who denied it. See Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal, ECF 46.
In the present case, Lenk once again asserts that he was wrongfully constructively discharged from his employment with MPS. See Compl. ¶ 18, ECF 1. He repeats the now-familiar allegations that he was hired by MPS in March 2012, experienced normal employment through December 2012, and experienced "an abrupt and significant change of attitude from MPS and manager Sciammas" after filing a complaint against his former employer, Freescale Semiconductor. Compl. ¶¶ 9-13. At that point, Lenk allegedly began to suffer adverse employment actions, including non-payment of a bonus and non-payment of business expenses, which ultimately culminated in his constructive discharge. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19.
Lenk also adds new allegations against MPS, Sciammas and SRC based on their litigation conduct in Lenk I and Lenk II. According to Lenk, Defendants "deprived Lenk of his rights for a fair and just recovery to the retaliatory actions by MPS/Sciammas in violation of Title VII and 42 USC 1981." Compl. ¶ 22, ECF 1. MPS, Sciammas, and SRC allegedly acted unlawfully throughout the litigation of Lenk I and Lenk II, for example by avoiding service of process and committing fraud on the court. Compl. ¶¶ 25-53. Lenk contends that MPS sought attorneys' fees in Lenk II for the purpose of harming him financially and dissuading other employees from asserting their rights. Compl. ¶ 55. Lenk claims that "[t]he delay tactics and actions by Defendant(s) have produced two judgments against Lenk." Compl. ¶ 70. "These judgments appear in background checks and used for hiring decisions." Id.
Lenk's complaint contains the following claims: (1) Title VII - Retaliation (against MPS); (2) Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (against MPS, Sciammas, and SRC); (3) Deprivation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against MPS, Sciammas, and SRC); (4) Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (against MPS, Sciammas, and SRC); and (5) Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (against MPS, Sciammas, and SRC). Compl., ECF 1.
MPS, Sciammas, and SRC each executed a waiver of service...
To continue reading
Request your trial