Kranson v. Federal Express Corporation

Filing 153

JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/11/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TIM KRANSON,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

) NO. 4-11-cv-05826-YGR
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON
) SPECIAL VERDICT
)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
)
and DOES ONE through TWENTY,
)
inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
__________________________________ )

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1
PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT
Case No. C 11-00107 CW

On October 1, 2012, the Court granted defendant summary judgment on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

plaintiff’s claim for violation of the California Family Rights Act.
The action came on regularly for trial on October 9, 2012 through October 15,
2012 in the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, before the Honorable
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The plaintiff was represented by attorneys Stephen M.
Murphy and P. Bobby Shukla. The defendant was represented by attorneys Charles
W. Matheis, Jr. and Carol D. DeFreitas.
A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were
sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury
was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with
directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter
returned into court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the
jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Court reserved ruling on plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment and for

14

violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq. The parties

15

submitted opening briefing on these claims on November 5, 2012 and revised

16

briefing on January 11, 2013. On June 10, 2013, the Court issued its order denying

17

plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment and violation of California Business and

18

Professions Code §17200, et seq.

19
20
21

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
That plaintiff TIM KRANSON have judgment against defendant FEDERAL

22

EXPRESS CORPORATION on his claims for disability discrimination, failure to

23

provide reasonable accommodation, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation

24

of public policy, for a total judgment of $

25

to be determined by the Court, and post-judgment interest at the legal rate to be

26

382,197.00

plus costs and attorney fees

2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

determined.
1
2
3
4
5

That defendant FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION have judgment
against plaintiff TIM KRANSON on plaintiff’s claims for violation of the California
Family Rights Act, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent
discrimination or retaliation, request for declaratory judgment, and violation of
California Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.

6
7

Dated: July 11, 2013

8

__________________________________________
HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

9
10

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
11
12

Dated: July 10, 2013

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
By:

13
14

/s/ Charles W. Matheis, Jr.
CHARLES W. MATHEIS, JR.
Attorney for Defendant

15
16

Dated: July 10, 2013

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. MURPHY

17

By:
18

/s/ Stephen M. Murphy
STEPHEN M. MURPHY
Attorney for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT

EXHIBIT A