Holmes v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. et al
Filing
118
ORDER RE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 5/2/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2011)
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: May 2, 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
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?