Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 49

ORDER Regarding Defendant's 47 Second Request to File Second Summary Judgment Motion, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/17/2015. (IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties are to continue to meet and confer as described above in good faith; 2. Defendant may file a second summary judgment motion no later than January 4, 2016; 3. Plaintiff may file an opposition within fourteen (14) days of service of the summary judgment motion; 4. Defendant may file a reply within seven (7) days of service of the opposition; and 5. The parties are to complete their meet and confer efforts as soon as possible, but no later than December 4, 2015.) (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

TREVOR WEEKS,

6
7
8
9

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT
Plaintiff

v.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
SECOND REQUEST TO FILE SECOND
SUMMARYJUDGMENT MOTION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
Defendant

(Doc. No. 47)

10
11
12

On November 13, 2015, Union Pacific filed a notice of meet and confer and a request to

13

file a second summary judgment motion. On November 16, 2015, Weeks filed a response. Part of

14

the response indicates that Weeks has information regarding the March 2015 Notice of Discipline

15

(“March NOD”) and jobs that were available for him around that time. Weeks contends that

16

because this evidence would preclude summary judgment, it would be futile for Union Pacific to

17

file a summary judgment motion.

18

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court believes that some clarification is in

19

order. The only claims that are at issue in this case are the claims that are found in the Original

20

Complaint (Doc. No. 1). A second summary judgment would be limited only to the remaining

21

claims that are fairly reflected in the Original Complaint. The claims in the Original Complaint do

22

not encompass the March NOD, and there are no claims based on the March NOD in this case.

23

Therefore, a second summary judgment motion would not address the March NOD, and any

24

evidence that Weeks may have in relation to the March NOD would not preclude summary

25

judgment on the remaining claims in the Original Complaint. Therefore, the Court will permit

26

Union Pacific to file a second summary judgment motion.

27
28

However, given the nature of Weeks’s response (that the motion would be futile because of
evidence surrounding the March NOD), it may be beneficial for the parties to meet and confer

1

once more. For purposes of the second summary judgment motion, the meet and confer should

2

address evidence that pertains to the claims that are fairly reflected in the Original Complaint – not

3

evidence surrounding the March NOD.
In terms of the March NOD, Weeks’s counsel has represented that an EEOC right to sue

4
5

letter has been obtained, and a proposed amended complaint has been submitted to Union Pacific’s

6

counsel for review. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the proposed amended complaint.

7

If an agreement to file the amended complaint is reached, Weeks may file it. If no agreement is

8

reached, Weeks may file a motion to amend the complaint with the Magistrate Judge or file a

9

second lawsuit based on the March NOD and a notice of related cases.
It is the Court’s intention to determine whether genuine disputed issues of material fact

10
11

exist with respect to the claims that remain pending in the Original Complaint. If Weeks’

12

proposed amended complaint is filed, it will not affect Union Pacific’s second summary judgment

13

motion unless it omits the claims that are the subject of the second summary judgment motion.

14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

The parties are to continue to meet and confer as described above in good faith;

17

2.

Defendant may file a second summary judgment motion no later than January 4, 2016;

18

3.

Plaintiff may file an opposition within fourteen (14) days of service of the summary

19

judgment motion;

20

4.

Defendant may file a reply within seven (7) days of service of the opposition; and

21

5.

The parties are to complete their meet and confer efforts as soon as possible, but no later

22

than December 4, 2015.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2