Jamie Martinez v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC

Opinion

JAMIE MARTINEZ, No. 2:25-cv-00795-DJC-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED Defendant. Plaintiff Jamie Martinez brought claims against Defendant ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC for violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (”FEHA”). This Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, finding Plaintiff failed to comply with FEHA’s requirement that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 24.) The Court then entered judgment for Defendant. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff now moves to alter or amend that judgment on the ground that the Court’s previous Order committed an error of law. (Mot. (ECF No. 26) at 5.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff Jamie Martinez began working for Conagra Foods in November of 2018. (Not. (ECF No. 1), Ex. A ¶ 8.) In July of 2023, Plaintiff’s medical providers ordered him to take medical leave for anxiety and stress. (Id. ¶ 11.) Though Plaintiff continued to provide documentation regarding his disability to Defendant’s human resources department and Defendant raised no concerns about Plaintiff’s leave, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in July of 2024, purportedly for “violation of the attendance policy.” (Id. ¶¶ 12–16.) In January 2025, Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”). (Order (ECF No. 24) at 2.) In this administrative complaint, Plaintiff identified the protected actions he took, the grounds on which he alleged Defendant discriminated against him, and the date on which these alleged incidents happened. (Order at 6–7.) Plaintiff requested CRD issue him an immediate “right to sue” letter. (Mot. at 3.) In doing so, Plaintiff elected to bypass any CRD investigation into his claims. (Id.) Plaintiff then brought civil rights and wrongful termination claims against Defendant in Stanislaus Superior Court. (Not., Ex. A at 1.) Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated the California Family Rights Act (”CFRA”) by retaliating against him for taking leave covered by the statute. (Id. ¶¶ 21–33.) Plaintiff also alleged Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of disability, retaliated against him, failed to accommodate his disability, and failed to engage in a good faith interactive process, all in violation of FEHA. (Id. ¶¶ 34–75.) Finally, Plaintiff alleged Defendant wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy. (Id. ¶¶ 76–82.) Defendant removed the case pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction and moved for a judgment on the pleadings. (Not. at 2; Mot. J. on Pleadings (ECF No. 16).) In this Motion, Defendant argued Plaintiff could not properly advance his claims because he had not complied with FEHA’s requirement that he exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a complaint in court. (Mot. J. on Pleadings at 6.) This Court granted Defendant’s Motion, holding that, although Plaintiff had obtained a right-to- sue notice, Plaintiff had failed to specify the facts underlying his FEHA claims in his administrative complaint. (Order at 7.) Rather, the Court found Plaintiff’s administrative complaint relied solely “on conclusory allegations.” (Order at 7.) As FEHA requires Plaintiff’s administrative complaint to provide a description of the “alleged acts or actions of discrimination,” the Court held Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and, therefore, could not bring these claims in federal court. (Id. at 4 (quoting Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 10005(d)); see also id. (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960(c)).) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend this Court’s prior Judgment (ECF No. 25) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Briefing on this Motion is now complete. (Mot. (ECF No. 26); Opp’n (ECF No. 27); Reply (ECF No. 28)). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), this Motion is submitted without oral argument. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file a “motion to alter or amend a judgment” within “28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 6 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000)). The Ninth Circuit has held a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is “usually available only when (1) the court committed manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court is presented with newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 491–92 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. See id. at 492. Plaintiff argues this Court should amend its prior judgment on the first ground, namely that the Court committed an error of law. (Mot. at 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues this Court erred in finding Plaintiff’s administrative complaint needed to identify the facts underlying Plaintiff’s FEHA allegations because the forms CRD uses to collect information prior to issuing a right-to-sue letter list such information as optional. (/d. at 5-6.) In support of this argument, Plaintiff attaches screenshots of the intake forms and instructions on CRD’s website. (See Mot., Exs. A-H.) These screenshots show that the spaces on these forms asking the filer to “[b]riefly describe what happened” and “[b]riefly describe what you believe to be the reason(s) for the discrimination, harassment, or retaliation” are labeled as optional. (Mot., Ex. D at 8; Mot., Ex. G at 5.) Plaintiff argues these forms’ designation of this information as “optional” carries the force of regulation that sets “forth the information necessary to obtain an immediate right to sue.” (Mot. at 8.) However, Plaintiff impermissibly attempts to make a new argument based on evidence that could have been submitted to the Court prior to judgment. Rule 59e) “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008). Plaintiff does not assert that Plaintiff's counsel recently discovered that CRD’s forms indicated this information was optional. Yet at time prior to this Motion did Plaintiff submit this evidence to the Court or argue this form carried the force of a regulation. Plaintiff could have presented these facts and this argument to the Court in their Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and failed to do so. See Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 508 (2020). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to supply a valid basis for altering or amending the judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Rule 59%e) (ECF No. 26) is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for December 4, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta is VACATED. 95 IT 1S SO ORDERED. Dated: _December 2, 2025 Donel J CoDbnatto Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE