Berndt et al v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 905

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting 900 Motion to Alter Judgment.(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 MARTHA BERNDT, et al., Case No. 03-cv-03174-NJV Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT v. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 900 Defendants. 13 14 This case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for Defendants and against Plaintiff 15 Martha Berndt. (Docs. 889, 890.) The court entered judgment on February 11, 2016. (Doc. 899.) 16 Defendants now seek to amend that judgment to include judgment in favor of Defendant CDCR 17 against Plaintiffs Shelly Adcock, Rasia Jeffries, and Lisa Boyd. (Doc. 900.) For the reasons set 18 forth below, the court will grant Defendants’ motion. 19 20 BACKGROUND The original complaint in this action was filed in July 9, 2003, by Plaintiffs Berndt, 21 Longo and Scott. The Fifth Amended Complaint, filed January 31, 2011, eventually became the 22 operative complaint. (Doc. 407.) The case proceeded as a putative class action until March 20, 23 2012, when class certification was denied. (Doc. 452.) On July 3, 2013, Defendants filed a 24 motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiffs Longo, Adcock, Jeffries, and Boyd 25 had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the 26 Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, and were time-barred from doing so. (Doc. 528.) 27 Chief Judge Hamilton granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Title 28 VII claims of Plaintiffs Longo, Adcock, Jeffries and Boyd. (Doc. 566.) Defendants subsequently 1 2 settled with six Plaintiffs, leaving only the claims of Plaintiff Berndt to be resolved at trial. On September 10, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing, “by and through 3 their respective counsel, to have Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas conduct all further proceedings 4 in this case, including a trial, and order the entry of final judgment.” (Doc. 845.) The jury trial of 5 Plaintiff Berndt’s case was held in San Francisco, from February 1, 2016, through February 10, 6 2016. The court entered judgment in favor of Defendants on February 11, 2016. (Doc. 899.) 7 Defendants filed their motion to alter or amend the judgment on February 18, 2016. (Doc. 900.) DISCUSSION 8 Defendants bring their motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 10 which provides simply that, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 28 days after the entry of judgment.” The court finds that Defendants’ motion is timely. 12 The Title VII claims of Plaintiffs Adcock, Jeffries and Boyd were the only claims raised by 13 those Plaintiffs. See Doc. 407, Fifth Amended Complaint. District Judge Hamilton dismissed 14 those claims in her order of August 27, 2013. (Doc. 566.) Plaintiffs do not oppose the 15 amendment of the February 11, 2016, to include judgment against Plaintiffs Adcock, Jeffries and 16 Boyd. The court finds that such amendment is appropriate. See F.R.C.P. 53(b). 17 The only remaining issue is the undersigned’s authority to enter judgment as to Plaintiffs 18 whose claims were dismissed before the parties consented to having undersigned hear the 19 remainder of the case. The court finds that authority in the parties’ stipulation to proceed before a 20 magistrate judge, which was signed by counsel for the three Plaintiffs in question. 21 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is HEREBY GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is 22 directed to amend the judgment entered February 11, 2016, to include judgment against 23 Plaintiffs Shelly Adcock, Raisa Jeffries, and Lisa Boyd, and in favor of Defendant CDCR. 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2016 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?