Pico v. Consumnes River College et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/21/10 GRANTING with prejudice 8 Motion to Dismiss. (Williams, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS 9
TELEPHONE: [phone] / FACSIMILE: [phone]

KELLIE M. MURPHY, ESQ. (SBN 189500) JASON M. SHERMAN, ESQ. (SBN 245190) JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS A Professional Law Corporation California Plaza 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 560 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants, COSUMNES RIVER COLLEGE and ROBERT MONTANEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ­ SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 13, 2010, Defendants Cosumnes River College and Robert Montanez filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Glenn Pico filed an Opposition brief on September 7, 2010 and a "Notice of New Events; Errata to Opposition" on September 29, 2010. Defendants filed a Reply brief and a Request for Judicial Notice on October 13, 2010. Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Request to Take Judicial Notice on October 13, 2010. The Court heard this matter on October 20, 2010, the Honorable Judge John A. Mendez, presiding. Kellie M. Murphy and Jason M. Sherman appeared on behalf of Defendants. James v. CONSUMNES RIVER COLLEGE and ROBERT MONTANEZ, DEAN, Defendants. GLENN PICO, Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01406-JAM-GGH ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PDF created withDEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com Case No.: 2:10-cv-01406-JAM-GGH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS
TELEPHONE: [phone] / FACSIMILE: [phone]

Joseph Lynch, Jr. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Having considered all matters submitted in the papers, all admissible evidence submitted in connection therewith, the pleadings on file in this matter, and the applicable law, and following oral argument, the Court finds and rules as follows: A plaintiff must commence a civil action based on charges contained in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint within 90 days of receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. This 90-day time period is proscribed for civil actions brought under Title VII. (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).) It is undisputed that Plaintiff in this matter did not file a Complaint within 90 days of receipt of his Notice of Right to Sue, and that the Complaint subject to this motion was filed beyond the 90 day time period. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's entire Complaint is GRANTED with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58(a).

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

2180 HARVARD STREET, SUITE 560 SACRAMENTO, CA 95815

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez__________ The Honorable John A. Mendez

2

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01406-JAM-GGH