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

Filing 196

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/3/12 ORDERING Plaintiff's Request for Augmentation is accordingly DENIED, and its concurrent Objection to the FPTO (as both set forth in ECF No. 194) is OVERRULED. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

ANDREA VAN SCOY, LYNDA
AZEVEDO, DIANA MURDOCK,
CHRISTINA CARNES; MINA
JO GUERRERO, MIRACLE
JOHNSON, ROSANNE LAZUKA,
PATRICIA LOGAN, THERESA ORTH,
and MARA GRACE SMITH,

15

18
19

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
AUGMENTATION OF FINAL PRETRIAL
ORDER AND OVERRULING OBJECTION
THERETO

PlaintiffS,

16
17

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

v.
NEW ALBERTSON’S INC.,
ALBERTSON’S, INC., SAVE-MART
SUPERMARKETS, INC., LUCKY’S
INC.; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive,

20
Defendants.
21
----oo0oo---22
23

This Court issued its Final Pretrial Order (“FPTO”) in the

24

above-referenced matter on August 13, 2012.

25

Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets filed its objection to that

26

Order along with a request for augmentation.

27

Plaintiffs responded to that objection.

28

///
1

On August 17, 2012,

On August 23, 2012,

1

Defendant’s objection is premised on the contention that

2

further proceedings should be held, even after the Final Pretrial

3

Conference of May 24, 2012, and the subsequently issued Final

4

Pretrial Order of August 13, 2012, with regard to what state law

5

claims have been preempted by the provisions of the Labor

6

Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141, et seq. (“LMRA”).

7

Defendant’s argument, at least in part, appears to be premised on

8

the manner in which the FPTO was structured, which reflected

9

apparent continuing disagreement between the parties as to which

10

claims in fact remain viable.

11

The Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary

12

judgment (ECF No. 160), however, resolves the matter.

In that

13

Memorandum and Order, the Court made it clear that preemption

14

only applied to Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for

15

Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation in contravention of

16

the California Fair and Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t.

17

Code § 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”).

18

other causes of action are implicated, and no adjudication as to

19

whether those other claims are preempted has ever been made.

20

Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims for Wrongful Termination in

21

Violation of Public Policy (the Second Cause of Action), as well

22

as Plaintiffs Azevedo and Johnson’s claims for disability

23

discrimination under FEHA (as set out in the Fourth, Fifth and

24

Sixth Causes of Action) remain viable.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

See ECF No. 160, p. 8, n.4.

2

No

1

Given the fact that the dispositive motion deadline has long

2

since passed, it would be improper for the Court to permit

3

Defendant, at this late stage, to, in essence, reopen motion

4

practice in this mater and to seek additional rulings on

5

additional issues.

6

accordingly DENIED, and its concurrent Objection to the FPTO (as

7

both set forth in ECF No. 194) is OVERRULED.

8
9

Plaintiff’s Request for Augmentation is

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2012

10
11
12

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

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