Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
ORDER RESPONDING to Plaintiff's 255 Request for Clarification signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES )
CIV-F-08-0617 AWI BAM
ORDER RESPONDING TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
Plaintiff claims that he was subject to employment discrimination by Defendant. The
court had granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in its favor on all of
Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 204. Plaintiff made a motion for reconsideration on all claims. The
court reaffirmed grant of summary adjudication of the disparate treatment and most other claims;
however, reconsideration was granted with respect to the disparate impact, wrongful demotion in
violation of public policy, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and negligent infliction of emotional
distress claims (all of which are related to the disparate impact theory). Doc. 227. These claims
were not directly addressed in the motion for summary judgment; the court granted leave to file a
new summary judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims. Plaintiff filed motions to
compel and to reopen discovery. The motions were denied by Magistrate Judge McAuliffe.
On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the following statement:
4. Defendant Wal-Mart and then Magistrate McAuliffe interpreted the Court’s Order
granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as only allowing [sic] a ‘fully addressing
the causes of action related to Plaintiff’s disparate impact claim.’
5. The Court chose not to cure any defects in its prior Motion for Summary Judgment
Ruling on Wrongful Demotion, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and violation
of Bus. & Prof. C. § 17200 outside of disparate impact claims.
6. For example, even though Defendant Wal-Mart did not challenge any aspect of the
Wrongful Demotion cause of action, Judge Ishii granted Summary Judgment on all
aspects of it, and his Order on Motion for Reconsideration only allowed it to proceed if
supported by disparate impact evidence and argument, if Defendant Wal-Mart and
Magistrate McAuliffe’s interpretation is correct.
7. If their interpretation of the Court’s order is in error, we ask the Court to so clarify.
Otherwise, we will assume their interpretation is correct.
Doc. 247, July 17, 2012 Declaration. The court made no response, indicating that Judge
McAuliffe’s and Defendant’s interpretation was correct.
Plaintiff has now filed a request for clarification: “Wal-Mart and Magistrate McAuliffe
interpreted the Order as only allowing claims based on disparate treatment to proceed. We have
a different interpretation. We do not wish to waste the court’s or parties’ resources presenting on
claims that have been dismissed, and not revived. Therefore, we respectfully request the Court
clarify its order, and indicate whether or not claims based on other than disparate treatment are
still viable, or were dismissed, and not revived.” Doc. 255, July 30, 2012 Request for
Clarification, 1:18-26, emphasis added. The court assumes that Plaintiff mistakenly used the
term “disparate treatment” for “disparate impact” in their request. To clarify again, Judge
McAuliffe and Defendant have correctly interpreted the prior order as allowing the disparate
impact and certain associated claims to move forward; summary adjudication in favor of
Defendant was granted as to all claims regarding disparate treatment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 3, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?