Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 256

ORDER RESPONDING to Plaintiff's 255 Request for Clarification signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ZANE HARDIN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES )
1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )

CIV-F-08-0617 AWI BAM
ORDER RESPONDING TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION

16
17

Plaintiff claims that he was subject to employment discrimination by Defendant. The

18

court had granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in its favor on all of

19

Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 204. Plaintiff made a motion for reconsideration on all claims. The

20

court reaffirmed grant of summary adjudication of the disparate treatment and most other claims;

21

however, reconsideration was granted with respect to the disparate impact, wrongful demotion in

22

violation of public policy, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and negligent infliction of emotional

23

distress claims (all of which are related to the disparate impact theory). Doc. 227. These claims

24

were not directly addressed in the motion for summary judgment; the court granted leave to file a

25

new summary judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims. Plaintiff filed motions to

26

compel and to reopen discovery. The motions were denied by Magistrate Judge McAuliffe.

27

On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed the following statement:

28

4. Defendant Wal-Mart and then Magistrate McAuliffe interpreted the Court’s Order
1

1

granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as only allowing [sic] a ‘fully addressing
the causes of action related to Plaintiff’s disparate impact claim.’

2
3

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.

4
5
6

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
8

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.

9
Doc. 247, July 17, 2012 Declaration. The court made no response, indicating that Judge
10
McAuliffe’s and Defendant’s interpretation was correct.
11
Plaintiff has now filed a request for clarification: “Wal-Mart and Magistrate McAuliffe
12
interpreted the Order as only allowing claims based on disparate treatment to proceed. We have
13
a different interpretation. We do not wish to waste the court’s or parties’ resources presenting on
14
claims that have been dismissed, and not revived. Therefore, we respectfully request the Court
15
clarify its order, and indicate whether or not claims based on other than disparate treatment are
16
still viable, or were dismissed, and not revived.” Doc. 255, July 30, 2012 Request for
17
Clarification, 1:18-26, emphasis added. The court assumes that Plaintiff mistakenly used the
18
term “disparate treatment” for “disparate impact” in their request. To clarify again, Judge
19
McAuliffe and Defendant have correctly interpreted the prior order as allowing the disparate
20
impact and certain associated claims to move forward; summary adjudication in favor of
21
Defendant was granted as to all claims regarding disparate treatment.
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0m8i78

August 3, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2