Klausner v. Lucas Film Entertainment Company LTD et al

Filing 30

AMENDED ORDER re 28 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/14/2010. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2483 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 202, Palo Alto, CA 94303 PHONE [phone] · FAX [phone]

Andrew F. Pierce, Esq. (State Bar No. 101889) Stacy North, Esq. (State Bar No. 219034) PIERCE & SHEARER LLP 2483 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 202 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone [phone] Fax [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff DREW KLAUSNER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Case No. C 09-03502 CW DREW KLAUSNER, an individual, Plaintiff vs. LUCAS FILM ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD, a California corporation; INDUSTRIAL LIGHT & MAGIC, a California corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. ____________________________________ AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS

PIERCE & SHEARER LLP

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

In this employment discrimination lawsuit, Plaintiff Drew Klausner alleges that Defendants Lucas Film Entertainment, Ltd. and Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) violated several state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from his employment because of age discrimination and that he was retaliated against for taking a leave of absence and complaining about discriminatory treatment. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims on the grounds that they are barred by the federal enclave doctrine. 1 Case No. C 09-03502 CW [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2483 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 202, Palo Alto, CA 94303 PHONE [phone] · FAX [phone]

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants Defendants' motion as follows: The Court dismisses Plaintiff's first through fourth causes of action and the California Government Code § 12940 allegations in the sixth cause of action. The sixth cause of action for retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, USC §§ 621-634 is not dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010

PIERCE & SHEARER LLP

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

_________________________________ HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN

2 Case No. C 09-03502 CW [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS