Villalvaso v. Odwalla, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER on defendant SFN Group, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, document 11 , DISMISSING, without prejudice, plaintiff's Title VII claims against Spherion, plaintiff's FEHA claims against Spherion, and sexual battery claim against Spherion; p laintiff's claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim against Spherion is DISMISSED, with prejudice, and plaintiff is DIRECTED that any amended complaint is due within 20 days of electronic service of the Court's Memorandum Decision, document 21 , and any responsive pleading to same due 20 days from the date of electronic service of the amended complaint; order signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 5/2/2011. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Alfred L. Sanderson Jr. (SBN 186071) E-mail: asanderson@seyfarth.com Kristina M. Launey (SBN 221335) E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com Lindsay S. Fitch (SBN 238227) E-mail: lfitch@seyfarth.com 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Attorneys for Defendant SFN Group, Inc. (f/k/a Spherion Corporation) (erroneously sued as Spherion, Inc.) 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ALICIA VILLALVASO, 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ODWALLA, INC., a California Corporation; ) SPHERION, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ) MARIO ACOSTA, an Individual, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. 10-cv-02369-OWW-MJS ORDER ON SFN GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS Complaint Filed: December 17, 2010 19 Defendant SFN Group, Inc.’s, (f/k/a Spherion Corporation and erroneously sued as 20 Spherion, Inc.) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint came on regularly for hearing on April 21 18, 2011 before Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. Lindsay S. Fitch from Seyfarth Shaw LLP 22 appeared on behalf of defendant Spherion and Felicia Espinosa appeared on behalf of plaintiff. 23 24 25 26 27 Having considered all materials filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and oral argument having been had, having reviewed the papers submitted in favor of and in opposition to Spherion’s motion, and the authorities and argument of counsel thereon, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court orders as follows: 28 1 ORDER 13338152v.1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Spherion are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 2. Plaintiff’s FEHA claims against Spherion are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiff’s wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim against Spherion is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 4. Plaintiff’s sexual battery claim against Spherion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure and must be filed with in twenty (“20”) days following the electronic service of the 11 Court’s Memorandum of Decision regarding defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. If an amended 12 complaint is filed, defendant shall have twenty (“20”) days from the date of electronic service of 13 the Complaint to respond. This Order is consistent with and made for the reasons discussed in 14 the attached Memorandum of Decision. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: May 2, 2011 /s/ OLIVER W.WANGER UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER 13338152v.1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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?