Liou v. CyraCom International Incorporated

Filing 47

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 46 Motion to Strike. The Court notes that Plaintiff may not file another motion for summary judgment without first obtaining leave of Court. See Case ManagementOrder (Doc. 31), 7(b). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/24/2016.(TCA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Glenn Liou, No. CV-15-01167-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER CyraCom International Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Glenn Liou moves for summary judgment on two facts. Doc. 39. 16 Defendant has filed a response (Doc. 42), but Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and the time 17 for replying has passed. Neither party requests oral argument. 18 Plaintiff filed this case in June 2015, alleging that Defendant CyraCom, his former 19 employer, discriminated against him because of his age in violation of the Age 20 Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 21 Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on two facts: (1) he never expressed disagreement with 22 Defendant’s “verbatim interpretation” policy, and (2) his “needs improvement” rating 23 was reversed. Doc. 39. Doc. 1. 24 A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing 25 the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] 26 which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex 27 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the 28 evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is 1 no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 2 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 3 Defendant contends that Plaintiff expressed disagreement with the verbatim 4 interpretation policy in an email dated May 14, 2014. Doc. 43-4. An affidavit submitted 5 by Eduardo Alvarez, the Contact Center Manager at Cyracom in Phoenix and Plaintiff’s 6 supervisor, supports Defendant’s contention. Doc. 43-2, ¶ 5. Mr. Alvarez also asserts in 7 his affidavit that Plaintiff’s “needs improvement” rating was not rescinded. Id., ¶ 6. The 8 affidavit by Mr. Alvarez creates an issue of fact regarding the matters addressed in 9 Plaintiff’s motion, and the Court therefore will deny the motion. 10 IT IS ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39) is denied. 12 2. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 46) is denied as moot. 13 3. The Court notes that Plaintiff may not file another motion for summary 14 judgment without first obtaining leave of Court. See Case Management 15 Order (Doc. 31), ¶ 7(b). 16 17 Dated this 24th day of February, 2016. 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?