Andrea Van Scoy, etal v. New Albertson's, Inc., etal

Filing 152

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/4/11 ORDERING that the hearings as to 130 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT and 128 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT are RESET for 6/9/2011 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Plaintiffs' supplemental brief, must be filed no later than 5/19/11. Defendants' reply brief due by 6/2/11. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDREA VAN SCOY, et al.,

12
13
14

No. 2:08-cv-02237-MCE-KJN

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
NEW ALBERTSON’S INC.,
et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17

----oo0oo----

18

Presently before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment

19

(ECF Nos. 128 and 130) filed on behalf of the various Defendants

20

to this litigation.

21

argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the six-month

22

statute of limitations applicable to actions governed by

23

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.

24

§ 141, et seq. (“LMRA”).

Those motions hinge to a great extent on the

25

Aside from the bare argument that Section 301 precludes

26

Plaintiffs’ claims, the moving papers make no effort to delineate

27

how that six-month period applies to each of the Plaintiffs’

28

various claim.
1

1

That dearth of any individual analysis prompted Plaintiffs, in

2

opposition, to point out that Defendants had not adequately

3

demonstrated any expiration of the limitations period, and

4

accordingly had not met their burden of establishing the

5

propriety of summary judgment.

6

time, Defendants cited authority for the proposition that an LMRA

7

claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes when a

8

plaintiff first learns of the wrongful conduct for which he or

9

she complains.

10
11

Then, in reply, for the first

Defendants went on to explain how that deadline

barred each of the Plaintiffs’ individual claims.
It is improper to introduce new facts and/or legal arguments

12

for the first time by way of reply, as opposed to the initial

13

moving papers.

14

871, 894-95 (1990).

15

consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”

16

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007).

17

therefore be improper for this Court to rule upon Defendants’

18

Motions without affording Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond

19

to the limitations arguments now articulated in Defendants’

20

reply.

21

See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S.
Indeed, the “district court need not

It would

The hearing on the present Motions, now set for May 5, 2011

22

at 2:00 p.m., is hereby continued to June 9, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in

23

order to facilitate the needed additional briefing.

24

should address not only how the applicable statute of limitations

25

is triggered in cases of this nature and how the limitations

26

period applies to Plaintiffs’ particular claims, but also whether

27

the filing of a timely discrimination complaint may toll or

28

otherwise affect claims also subject to the LMRA.
2

The parties

1

Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in

2

length, must be filed not later than May 19, 2011.

3

may file a reply to that briefing, no longer than five (5) pages

4

in length, by June 2, 2011.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Defendants

Dated: May 4, 2011

7
8
9

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3