Mendoza v. MV Transportation, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER re: 29 33 Motions for summary judgment. Supplemental evidence from Plaintiff, if any, due by 06/08/17. Requests for hearing, if any, due by 06/09/17. Motion hearing previously set for 06/12/17 is vacated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/01/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MICHAEL MENDOZA,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

v.
MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Case No. 16-cv-04005-TEH
ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.

9

Currently pending before the Court in this disability discrimination case are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant MV Transportation, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff Michael

12

Mendoza’s motion for partial summary judgment.

13

The following facts are undisputed: MV Transportation, Inc. hired Michael

14

Mendoza as a bus driver in training but terminated him, before training was completed, for

15

failing to pass a physical. Mendoza has Type 2 diabetes, which he controls by giving

16

himself insulin shots several times a day. Under federal Department of Transportation

17

(“DOT”) regulations, a person with an “established medical history or clinical diagnosis of

18

diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” is not qualified to drive

19

commercial motor vehicles. 49 C.F.R. § 391.41(b)(3). However, individuals with diabetes

20

who wish to drive commercial vehicles may do so if they obtain an exemption through the

21

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Federal Diabetes Exemption Program.

22

Mendoza has never sought or obtained such an exemption.

23

It is further undisputed that: California has adopted the medical requirements in the

24

DOT regulations as the “minimum medical requirements” for receiving a California

25

commercial driver license (“CDL”). Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 28.18. An individual who

26

does not meet these medical requirements but who seeks a CDL “for purposes other than

27

engaging in interstate commerce, may submit a completed medical examination form to

28

the department [of motor vehicles] for consideration of obtaining a state approved medical

1

certificate.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 28.19. Mendoza applied for and obtained a

2

California permit to drive commercial vehicles. As part of the application process, he

3

completed a medical examination and obtained a certificate stating that the medical

4

examiner “examined Mendoza, Michael E. in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier

5

Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) and with knowledge of the driving duties, I

6

find this person is qualified, and, if applicable, only when . . . accompanied by a Diabetes

7

waiver/exemption.” Ex.3 to Rogers Decl. at MENDOZA 000010 (ECF No. 31).1

8

Mendoza contends that this medical certificate is the “state approved medical
certificate” that allows him to drive intrastate pursuant to California Code of Regulations

10

title 13, section 28.19, and that he did not need a federal DOT waiver because the job for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

which he was hired did not involve interstate commerce. On its face, however, the

12

certificate states that Mendoza is qualified to drive only when accompanied by a diabetes

13

waiver or exemption, and Mendoza testified at his deposition that he does not have any

14

such waiver or exemption from any state or federal agency. Mendoza Dep. at 208:14-22

15

(Ex. A to Wenter Decl. (ECF No. 33-3)). Without such a waiver, the certificate on which

16

Mendoza relies does not qualify him to drive commercial vehicles.

17

Mendoza also testified at his deposition that he spoke with a person, whose name he

18

does not recall, at his local California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) office who

19

told him that he would not have gotten a permit if he did not have the necessary medical

20

paperwork on file. Id. at 157:3-158:14. Mendoza further testified that the DMV

21

representative told him that the representative could not provide a copy of the paperwork

22

because it was on file in Sacramento. Id. at 154:14-16. These statements are hearsay to

23

the extent they are offered as evidence that Mendoza had a diabetes waiver or exemption.

24

Moreover, MV subpoenaed Mendoza’s DMV file during the course of this litigation, and –

25
26
27
28

1

The cited version of the medical examiner’s certificate was notarized after the fact
and produced by Mendoza during discovery. MV produced an un-notarized version of the
certificate at D00146. Ex. 4 to Otten Declaration (ECF No. 33-5). Aside from the
notarization, the two versions of the document are identical, and the parties do not dispute
its content.
2

1

as Mendoza does not dispute – that file contains no diabetes waiver or exemption. Wenter

2

Reply Decl. ¶ 5 & Exs. D & E (ECF No. 38-2).

3

Based on the evidence presented, no reasonable juror could conclude that Mendoza

4

had a state medical certificate finding him qualified to drive commercial vehicles in the

5

absence of a diabetes waiver or exemption. Thus, even if Mendoza is correct that he did

6

not require a DOT exemption and only required a state approved medical certificate to be

7

qualified to drive for MV, there is no triable issue of fact as to his qualifications. Mendoza

8

does not argue that he can prevail on his claims without being qualified to drive

9

commercial vehicles, and granting summary judgment to MV therefore appears to be
appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

12

judgment as a matter of law.”).

13

However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Mendoza with one

14

final opportunity to present evidence that he had a medical certificate finding him qualified

15

to drive commercial vehicles even without a diabetes waiver or exemption, or evidence

16

that he actually obtained such a waiver or exemption. Any such evidence shall be filed on

17

or before June 8, 2017. If no evidence is timely submitted, the Court will grant MV’s

18

motion for summary judgment and deny Mendoza’s motion for partial summary judgment

19

for the reasons stated in this order.

20

The Court finds the pending motions suitable for resolution without oral argument.

21

However, if either party files a request for a hearing on or before June 9, 2017, then the

22

Court will hear argument on June 26, 2017, at 10:00 AM; otherwise, the matter will be

23

deemed submitted on the papers. The June 12, 2017 hearing is VACATED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 06/01/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
3