Reddy v. Precyse Solutions, LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Non-Final Orders for Appeal and Request for Stay of Proceedings 31 ; Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/3/14. Jeffrey Levitt, Chris Powell, Cheryl Servais, Sally Kurth, Stacie Moore, Sharon Fremer, Janell Bailey-Beach, Sherry Todd, and Shirley Wilder DISMISSED.(Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISHNA REDDY,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB

Plaintiff,
v.
PRECYSE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ORDERS
FOR APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS; AND DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 5, 31)

16
17

I.

18

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

Plaintiff Krishna Reddy filed this action on December 19, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On April

20

12, 2013, the complaint was screened by the magistrate judge and an order issued requiring

21

Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she was willing to proceed

22

on those claims found to be cognizable in the complaint. (ECF No. 5.) On May 10, 2013, the

23

magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and

24

motion to file papers electronically and granting Plaintiff thirty additional days to file an amended

25

complaint or notify the Court that she would proceed on the cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.)

26

On June 11, 2013, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

27

orders of the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 11.) On October 10, 2013, an order issued denying

28

Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings and granting Plaintiff thirty days to file an
1

1

amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) On December 6, 2013, this action was dismissed for

2

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of her intent to proceed on the

3

cognizable claims. (ECF No. 19.)

4

Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment on January 3, 2014. (ECF No. 21.) On

5

January 23, 2014, the undersigned ordered that this action be reopened and Plaintiff was granted

6

thirty days in which to file an amended complaint or notify the Court that she is willing to

7

proceed on the claims found cognizable in the complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On February 18, 2014,

8

Plaintiff filed a motion to certify the nonappealable orders for appeal and for a stay of the

9

proceedings and indicated that she intended to stand on her complaint. (ECF No. 31.)

10

II.

11

DISCUSSION

12

A.

Motion to Stay

13

Plaintiff once again requests that this action be stayed while she appeals the denial of her

14

motion for appointment of counsel. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the

15

proceedings as a motion for reconsideration. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motions for

16

appointment of counsel and a stay of this action while she files an appeal on several occasions.

17

(ECF Nos. 9, 11, 18.) Plaintiff continues to raise the same arguments that were presented in her

18

previous motions. These arguments have been considered and rejected by both the magistrate

19

judge and this Court. Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings is denied. Further, any

20

further such motions filed raising these same arguments shall be stricken from the record.

21

B.

Motion to Certify Non-Appealable Orders for Appeal

22

Plaintiff seeks for the Court to certify the non-appealable orders for an interlocutory

23

appeal. Plaintiff requests that the Court certify an order dismissing certain of her claims for

24

appeal so that she can appeal the finding that she failed to state cognizable claims.

25

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the court of appeals has jurisdiction over final decisions of the

26

district court. Couch v. Telescope Inc. 611 F3.d 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the district

27

court may certify an order that is otherwise not appealable where “such order involves a

28

controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and
2

1

that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

2

litigation.” Couch, 611 F.3d at 311 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291(b)).

3

The Court does not find that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that the orders at

4

issue in this action involve a controlling question of law to which there is a substantial ground for

5

a difference of opinion or that an appeal of the order would materially advance the ultimate

6

termination of the litigation. Plaintiff seeks to appeal the finding that her complaint fails to state

7

some cognizable claims. Plaintiff’s difference of opinion with the findings of the Court does not

8

create a reason to certify this action for an interlocutory appeal.

9

opportunity to appeal any interlocutory orders when a final decision is entered in the action.

Plaintiff will have the

10

C.

Notice of Intent to Proceed on Complaint

11

On April 12, 2013, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint, and found that it

12

states a claim against Defendant Precyse for disparate treatment in violation of Title VII and 42

13

U.S.C. § 1981, and state law claims for disparate treatment under the Fair Employment and

14

Housing Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wage

15

laws, but does not state any other cognizable claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

16

Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of her willingness to

17

proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice

18

stating that she does not wish to amend and will stand on her complaint. (ECF No. 31.) The

19

Court shall therefore dismiss the remaining claims and defendants and this action shall proceed

20

on the claims found to be cognizable in the April 12, 2013 order.

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

23

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action is DENIED;

25

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal is DENIED;

26

3.

This action shall proceed against Defendant Precyse for disparate treatment in

27

violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law claims for disparate

28

treatment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, breach of contract, breach
3

1
2

of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wage laws
4.

Defendants Jeffrey Levitt, Chris Powell, Cheryl Servais, Sally Kurth, Stacie

3

Moore, Sharon Fremer, Janell Bailey-Beach, Sherry Todd (also known as Sherry

4

Grantham) and Shirley Wilder are dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure

5

to state a cognizable claim against them;

6

5.

Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,

7

discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin, hostile work

8

environment, retaliation, conspiracy, Fair Labor Standards Act, unconstitutional

9

offshoring of confidential medical information, tortious wrongful termination in

10

violation of public policy, promissory estoppel, fraud and deceit, civil conspiracy,

11

intentional and negligent interference with contractual relations and prospective

12

business advantage, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and

13

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed from this action for

14

failure to state a claim; and

15
16

6.

This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to initiate service of process
proceedings.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4