Johnson v. Chevron Corporation et al

Filing 261

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 244] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / SAMUEL B. JOHNSON III, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05756 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 244] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On February 4, 2009, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court rules as follows. First, in plaintiff's first amended complaint, he alleged that defendants had discriminated against him on the bases of his race, his sexual orientation and his HIV/AIDS status. See FAC 18. Plaintiff attempted in his proposed complaint to expand this case more than a year into litigation to include claims based on "mental, physical and other medical conditions," including a purported work-related injury to his left hand and arm. See Proposed SAC 18. As defendants argued in their opposition, this expansion of the litigation would unfairly prejudice defendants by reopening non-expert discovery to determine, inter alia, what accommodations he sought, whether those accommodations were possible, and which individuals were involved in the purported discrimination. The fact that the parties have stipulated to extend expert discovery by one month (to March 13, 2009) does not change the Court's determination that plaintiff's request is unreasonable. Plaintiff provides no justification for his vague contention that the basis for his new claims did not become "truly evident" until August 14, 2008. See Pl. Mot., at 12. [Docket No. 244] It is not evident to the Court how defendants were supposed to have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 known "to ask rebuttal questions or [to request] . . . additional depositions" when they were not aware that plaintiff's unspecified mental and physical conditions were part of this case. See id., at 5. Second, it appears that plaintiff did, in fact, allege in his First Amended Complaint that defendants had violated the FEHA by discriminating against him on the basis of his HIV/AIDS status. See FAC 235. Accordingly, the Court amends page 5 of its February 4 Order as follows: 2. Plaintiff may add the causes of action numbered 28, 30, 34, and 35 in his proposed amended complaint. These FEHA claims may allege discrimination only on the basis of plaintiff's HIV/AIDS status and his race. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District 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?