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)
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?