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)

Download PDF
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

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?