Holmes v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. et al

Filing 117

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/29/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2011)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
NATHANIEL HOLMES,
8
Plaintiff,

No. C 09-5781 PJH

9
v.

ORDER

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC.,
et al.,

12

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13
14

In light of the discussion at the pretrial conference and the rulings made at that time,

15

the court has carefully reviewed the transcripts of the deposition of plaintiff Nathaniel

16

Holmes, submitted by the parties. The court finds no specific references in plaintiff’s

17

testimony to any adverse actions taken against him on account of his having complained

18

about racial discrimination by defendant Tenderloin Housing Committee (“THC”) or anyone

19

employed by THC. Nor does the court recall any such evidence presented by plaintiff in his

20

opposition to defendants’ prior motions for summary judgment.

21

Thus, in the interest of conservation of judicial resources, the court will determine

22

whether there is indeed any admissible evidence to put before the jury in support of the

23

§ 1981 retaliation claim. Upon further consideration, the court concludes that the THC

24

defendants’ motion to file a second motion for summary judgment on the sole remaining

25

claim (the § 1981 retaliation claim) should be GRANTED.

26

The motion shall be filed no later than June 1, 2011. The opposition shall be filed 14

27

days thereafter, and the reply shall be filed 7 days after the filing of the opposition. Given

28

that the court has already conducted two hearings on various motions in this case, the

1

motion will likely be decided on the papers. The court will contact counsel if it finds that a

2

hearing is required.

3

The date for the trial, presently set for May 23, 2011, will be CONTINUED to a date

4

to be set by the court should the THC defendants’ motion be denied. If the trial goes

5

forward, it will be governed by the final pretrial order filed separately this day.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: April 29, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2