Qualters v. Cablevision Systems Corporation
Filing
37
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Cablevision Systems Corporation. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Bresnan's summary judgment motion (ECF 26 ) be DENIED, and that the Court set this matter for trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn S Ostby on 1/29/2015. (JDH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
BRETT QUALTERS,
CV 14-40-BLG-SPW-CSO
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
vs.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, d/b/a
BRESNAN BROADBAND OF
MONTANA, LLC, BRESNAN
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and
OPTIMUM,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Brett Qualters (“Qualters”) filed this wrongful discharge
action against Defendant Bresnan (“Bresnan”),1 claiming that Bresnan
discharged him from his employment as a telephone customer support
representative without good cause and in violation of its own written
personnel policy. Second Am. Cmplt. (ECF 6) at ¶¶ 11, 12.
1
The named Defendant is Cablevision Systems Corporation, d/b/a
Bresnan Broadband of Montana, LLC, Bresnan Communications, LLC,
and Optimum. According to Defendant’s counsel, in 2013 Charter
Communications, Inc., acquired Bresnan Communications, LLC, from
Cablevision Systems Corporation, and Bresnan Communications, LLC,
was Qualter’s employer at all times relevant in this action. Answer to
Second Am. Cmplt (ECF 7) at 1, n.1. Because the parties refer to
Defendant as “Bresnan,” the Court will do the same.
-1-
Pending is Bresnan’s summary judgment motion. Bresnan’s
Summary Judgment Mtn. (ECF 26). As discussed further below,
Bresnan argues that it had good cause to discharge Qualters for
misconduct and various performance deficiencies. Bresnan’s Opening
Br. (ECF 28) at 2. Bresnan argues that it did not violate its policies
and procedures in firing Qualters. Id. at 12-14.
Qualters responds that summary judgment is not appropriate.
He maintains that genuine issues of material fact exist respecting each
performance deficiency identified by Bresnan. Qualters’ Resp. Br. (ECF
35) at 2, 6-12. Qualters acknowledges that he received a written
warning respecting certain alleged performance deficiencies, but he
disputes Bresnan’s characterization of his alleged performance
deficiencies. He also contends that he had recently had medical issues
that required him to seek certain accommodations from Bresnan and
his discharge occurred the day before he would have become eligible for
the Family Medical Leave Act, suggesting that Bresnan’s proffered
reason for discharging him was pretextual. Id. at 6-13.
Having considered the parties’ submissions and the applicable
law, the Court enters the following Findings and Recommendation
-2-
concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist and recommending
that Bresnan’s summary judgment motion be denied.
I.
BACKGROUND2
Qualters worked for Bresnan from February 18, 2011, until
February 17, 2012. ECF 34 at ¶ 1. He worked as a technical support
representative3 who was to provide professional support for Bresnan
customers within customer service standards. Id. at ¶ 2. His duties
included complying with call center operational objectives, phone
system procedures, and work schedules. Id. He also was to work
within department/call center/company standards, rules, procedures,
policies, and regulations. Id.
In November 2011, Qualters received a “final written warning”
discussing various violations of Bresnan policies revealed during an
audit of Qualters’ calls. Id. at ¶ 3. The written warning states:4
2
The Court has taken the background facts from Bresnan’s
Statement of Undisputed Facts (ECF 27), Qualters’ Statement of
Disputed Facts (ECF 34), and from the supporting exhibits filed with
each. Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed.
3
The parties sometimes refer to such employees as “agents” and
use the titles “representative” and “agent” interchangeably. Thus, the
Court also sometimes uses the titles interchangeably.
4
Because the parties’ dispute in this action centers, in large part,
on each party’s characterization of information described in the written
-3-
List work rules, company policies/procedures etc. violated:
Bresnan Communications Employee Handbook, Expectations, Pg. 9:
•
That you will perform your work in a careful, efficient manner
•
That you will apply yourself to the best of your ability to your
assignments
Bresnan Communications Employee Handbook, Pg 19:
•
Misbehavior including but not limited to: Wasting time
Factual and specific description of the performance or
behavioral problem(s):
Brett, a review of your call handling for the month of October
revealed that on a daily basis multiple customer calls were
routed to your phone extension, and were then agent
disconnected within a few seconds of you receiving the calls.
Below is a detailed evaluation of 1 day (October 21[, 2011]), but
is representative of all days looked at for the month of October:
Total inbound calls:
43
Total inbound calls less than 10 Seconds:
16
Total inbound calls agent disconnected:
18
Total inbound calls agent disconnected less than 10 seconds: 13
This represents 13 calls on this day that were delivered to your
phone by the system, and were disconnected at your local
phone within the first 10 seconds of the call.
It was also discovered that throughout the day you will make
outside line calls to your own personal cell phone and then
after the call is connected you will transfer the call to the
customer survey.
warning, the Court sets forth its material contents verbatim. See ECF
27-3 at 1-2.
-4-
Throughout the month of October you have been recorded
calling your work voicemail box and then hanging up the call
immediately after connecting to the mailbox. This was done 5
times on October 21.
During our investigation you reported that you suspected your
headset may be bad, and that you “occasionally” get calls that
just beep and go away. You said you suspect it was a bad
headset. When asked if you had reported this problem you said
you had over a month ago to a lead agent, but never to a
supervisor, and to no one else since. When asked to clarify you
stated that “occasionally” means a couple times a day.
...
Identify the specific action/desired behavior the employee
must undertake to improve performance including
timeframes. Document dates for follow-up meetings.
Brett, Disconnecting a customer call is never acceptable. You
are responsible to ensure no further agent disconnected calls
occur from your phone. If you have a call you feel needs to be
disconnected for any reason, you must engage a supervisor or
lead prior to the call being terminated for review and
documentation.
You must immediately stop making any and all non customer
related outbound calls. Calling your personal cell phone, your
work voicemail, or any other non customer call related phone
number from your work phone is not allowed. This constitutes
wasting company time, and a deliberate attempt to falsely
achieve performance expectations.
Anytime you are experiencing phone or other hardware
problems, it is your responsibility to immediately report those
issues to a supervisor or manager, especially when such issues
may have a direct negative customer impact. Having a
problem with your phone headset that you thought might be
disconnecting customer calls and not properly reporting it is
-5-
not acceptable behavior, and must be corrected immediately.
Detail consequences if improvement is not made and
sustained.
Your job is in jeopardy. Any further instances of agent
disconnected calls, inappropriate outbound calls, wasting
company time, or failure to properly report hardware issues
impacting the customer experience will result in termination of
your employment. Continued violations of any other company
work standards, policies and/or procedures, including
attendance policies, may lead to future disciplinary action up to
and including termination.
ECF 27-3 at 1-2.
Qualters also was supposed to transfer callers into a survey that
Bresnan used to try to get customer feedback on the level of service it
provides. ECF 28 at 8; ECF 34 at ¶ 23. Qualters was required to show
that a certain percentage of callers were transferred to a survey daily
and he understood that Bresnan wanted the caller to complete the
survey. ECF 34 at ¶¶ 26-27.
Qualters agrees that he received the final written warning, that it
contains the language set forth above, and that he met with his
supervisor, Cody McNiven (“McNiven”), and the manager of Bresnan’s
customer call center, Brek Nielsen (“Nielsen”), to go over the contents
of the warning. He also agrees that, at the time they met, McNiven
-6-
may have shown him a list of calls from his phone. ECF 34 at pp. 2-5,
7-9. As discussed below, however, Qualters disputes the underlying
bases for the deficiencies listed in the final written warning. ECF 35 at
pp. 6-10; ECF 34 at pp. 3-11.
Around the end of December 2011, Qualters experienced a
medical condition and requested an accommodation of some medical
leave for doctor appointments. Bresnan’s human resource manager for
the call center approved the request for accommodation on January 12,
2012. ECF 33 at ¶ 18; ECF 33-3 at 1.
Nielsen conducted an audit of Qualters’ calls on January 28, 2012.
Id. at ¶¶ 40-41. Qualters then met with McNiven and Don Unruh,
another Bresnan supervisor. ECF 34 at ¶ 32. Qualters was informed
that, since receiving the final written warning, he had violated other
Bresnan policies. One alleged violation was that Qualters instructed a
customer to disconnect his cable so that the customer would receive
service before other customers. Id. at ¶ 33. Another alleged violation
was that Qualters told a customer whose internet was not working
about an internet outage in Colorado and that there had been some up
and down with the internet that day. Id. at ¶ 42.
-7-
On February 17, 2012, Bresnan discharged Qualters. ECF 34 at ¶
76.
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) requires the court to grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions
of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Entry of summary judgment is appropriate “against a party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. A moving
party without the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial has both the
initial burden of production and the ultimate burden of persuasion on a
motion for summary judgment. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz
-8-
Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving
party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing
party to establish a genuine issue as to any material fact. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
The purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and
to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for
trial. Id. at 587 (quotation omitted). In resolving a summary judgment
motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson,
477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from
the facts placed before the Court must be drawn in favor of the
opposing party, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Montana’s Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act
(“WDEA”), MCA §§ 39-2-901, et seq., provides, in relevant part, that a
discharge is wrongful only if:
...
(b)
the discharge was not for good cause . . .; or
(c)
the employer violated the express provisions of its own
written personnel policy.
MCA § 39-2-904(1).
-9-
As noted, Bresnan seeks summary judgment arguing that it had
good cause to discharge Qualters. ECF 28 at 4-12. It also argues that
it did not violate its policies and procedures when it discharged him.
Id. at 12-14.
Qualters, on the other hand, argues that summary judgment is
not appropriate. He maintains that genuine issues of material fact
exist respecting both (1) whether Bresnan had good cause to discharge
him, ECF 35 at 6-13, and (2) whether Bresnan violated its employment
policy when it discharged him, id. at 13-14. Such fact issues, he
argues, preclude summary judgment and necessitate trial. Id. at 14-15.
A.
Good Cause
The WDEA defines “good cause” as “reasonable job-related
grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job
duties, disruption of the employer’s operation, or other legitimate
business reason.” MCA § 39-2-903(5). A legitimate business reason is
one that is “neither false, whimsical, arbitrary or capricious, and . . .
must have some logical relationship to the needs of the business.”
Baumgart v. State of Montana, 332 P.3d 225, 231 (Mont. 2014) (quoting
Sullivan v. Continental Const. of Montana, LLC, 299 P.3d 832, 835
-10-
(Mont. 2013)). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the employee
may either prove that the given reason for the discharge is not “good
cause” in and of itself, or that the given reason “is a pretext and not the
honest reason for the discharge.” Becker v. Rosebud Operating Services,
Inc., 191 P.3d 435, 441 (Mont. 2008) (quoting Johnson v. Costco
Wholesale, 152 P.3d 727, 734 (Mont. 2007)).
In considering whether good cause exists for a discharge, courts
strive to balance an employer’s right to exercise discretion over who it
will employ and keep employed with an employee’s legitimate interest
in maintaining secure employment. Buck v. Billings Montana
Chevrolet, Inc., 811 P.2d 537, 540 (Mont. 1991). “The balance should
favor an employee who presents evidence, and not mere speculation or
denial, upon which a jury could determine that the reasons given for
his termination were false, arbitrary or capricious, and unrelated to the
needs of the business.” Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 152 P.3d 727, 733
(Mont. 2007) (quoting Kestell v. Heritage Health Care Corp., 858 P.2d 3,
8 (Mont. 1993)).
Bresnan argues that it had good cause to discharge Qualters
“many times over.” ECF 28 at 4. It argues that Qualters was told he
-11-
violated company policies and was warned that he would be discharged
for further violations. Id. When it was discovered two months later
that Qualters continued to regularly violate company policies, Bresnan
discharged him. Id.
Bresnan argues that it warned Qualters, both in the final written
warning and the later audit of his calls, that it had identified
performance deficiencies that include: (1) wasting time; (2)
disconnecting customer calls within a few seconds of receiving them; (3)
calling his own personal cell phone then transferring the calls to the
customer survey in attempts to artificially inflate his survey transfer
numbers by making it appear as though he transferred callers to the
survey more often than he actually did; (4) calling his work voicemail
box then hanging up the call immediately after connecting to put him
on the bottom of the queue of agents receiving calls – a form of call
avoidance; (5) failing to report his suspected malfunctioning headset to
a supervisor instead of to a lead agent when he started experiencing
dropped calls; (6) failing to transfer callers into Bresnan’s customer
service survey; (7) instructing a customer to disconnect his cable so that
the customer would receive service from technicians before other
-12-
customers; (8) telling a customer whose internet was not working
properly about an unrelated internet outage in Colorado and saying
that there had been some up and down with the internet that day; (9)
discussing with a customer how he had personally had problems with
Bresnan’s online chat tool; (10) going to a non-Bresnan website to help
a customer with an issue not related to Bresnan’s service; (11) having a
lengthy discussion with a customer about the spelling of the customer’s
son’s name, thus unnecessarily extending the length of the call; (12)
failing repeatedly to conduct a call closing, to offer additional
assistance, and to discuss the survey with customers; (13) cursing by
using the word “damn” while on a customer call; (14) saying “that
stinks” during a customer’s call; (15) setting the phone down without
placing the customer on hold for three and a half minutes and then
disconnecting the customer; (16) transferring a customer call without
first accessing the customer’s account; and (17) transferring the call to
the commercial billing queue when he should have handled the
customer’s problem himself. ECF 28 at 4-12.
Qualters responds that genuine issues of material fact exist
respecting whether Bresnan had good cause to discharge him. And he
-13-
has presented evidence to support his position that Bresnan’s proffered
reasons do not comprise good cause for discharging him.
Specifically, Qualters states in his affidavit that: (1) he believes
he was a competent, resourceful, and diligent employee while at
Bresnan, and that he had no intent to waste time, Qualters Affidavit
(ECF 33) at ¶ 3; (2) he started experiencing more call disconnections or
“dropped calls” than usual in October 2011 and other agents also would
have them at times, id. at ¶ 5; (3) he did not know if the dropped calls
were the result of the drop, the phone system, or his headset, but he
started to suspect the headset, so he reported the problem to a lead
agent, id.; (4) after his November 2011 meeting with McNiven and
Nielsen, he swapped out his headset with McNiven’s headset and the
problem was entirely resolved, id.; (5) even though Nielsen thought he
was intentionally disconnecting customer calls and wasting company
time by making third party calls during his shift, he never disconnected
calls after discovering his headset was defective and never made third
party calls while on the job, id. at ¶ 6; (6) he explained in the November
2011 meeting that he was calling his work phone from his cell phone
and transferring it to the customer survey to allow him to later transfer
-14-
customers to the survey more easily, thus saving time on each call, id.;
(7) he had no intention at any time to manipulate performance metrics,
id.; (8) his explanation to McNiven and Nielsen, which Bresnan argues
never occurred, is reflected in Bresnan’s own meeting notes, which
Bresnan provided in discovery, id.; (9) after the November 2011
meeting, he never made any outbound calls for any purpose and all
issues were completely resolved, id. at ¶ 7; (10) the November 2011
meeting contained the only warning he ever received, id. at ¶ 8; (11)
after McNiven found that Qualters headset was defective, Qualters
asked both McNiven and Sandra Bradford to revisit the warning he had
received since it was found that he had not intentionally dropped calls,
but nothing was done, everything was fine, and he continued to do a
good job, id.; (12) he always transferred customers into the survey at
the end of a call during the entire time he worked for Bresnan, id. at ¶
9; (13) the customer survey requirement would change periodically such
that at one point agents were informed that they did not need to
mention the survey to customers but were to simply transfer them to
the survey at the end of a call, id. at ¶ 10; (14) Nielsen’s January 28,
2012 audit was never shown to Qualters nor was he given the
-15-
opportunity to listen to the calls and explain, so he has no independent
recollection of the calls and he did not receive a copy of the audit until
after he filed this action, id. at ¶ 11; (15) Nielsen’s audit raises minor
points such as Qualters use of the word “stinks” during a call, and his
statistics during his employment were always adequate, id. at ¶ 12;
(16) respecting the fact that he had a customer disconnect a modem to
receive service faster, Qualters got the idea from a lead agent to use in
rare, extreme, urgent situations, id. at ¶ 13; (17) he geared his
language and conversation with customers to their particular needs
and was always polite and friendly toward customers, id. at ¶ 14; (18)
he did not do a call closing with a customer on January 28, 2012,
because he was calling the customer back, id. at ¶ 15; (19) he did not
put a customer on hold because it was the call center’s practice for an
agent to get up from his desk to go to the operation desk to get a test
phone so that he could make calls from both lines, id. at ¶ 16; (20) he
transferred a call to the commercial billing queue because Bresnan was
migrating new customers from Bresnan to Optimum and a floor
supervisor informed him that agents were not to handle the migrations,
id. at ¶ 17; (21) slightly more than one month after requesting and
-16-
receiving an accommodation of some medical leave for doctor
appointments, Bresnan fired Qualters, id. at ¶¶ 18-19; and (22) when
Nielsen told him he was being discharged, Qualters asked for specifics
and none were given, nor were any given beyond the November 2011
warning when the Unemployment Insurance Division investigated
while determining that Qualters was eligible for unemployment
insurance benefits, id. at ¶ 22.
In reply, Bresnan argues that Qualters’ response to its summary
judgment motion “is replete with red herrings and internal
inconsistencies[,]” “raises irrelevant issues and sham disputes of fact to
distract the Court[,]” and confirms enough of Bresnan’s version of the
facts “to establish good cause to terminate [Qualters’] employment
several times over.” Bresnan’s Reply Br. (ECF 36) at 2. Specifically,
Bresnan argues that Qualters: (1) admits that he was warned in
November 2011 about his conduct, knew his job was in jeopardy, and
was aware that further misconduct would result in his termination, id.
at 3; (2) admits that 13 calls were disconnected within the first 10
seconds of the call on October 21, 2011, but maintains that the
disconnections were not intentional and were due to a malfunctioning
-17-
headset and nevertheless failed to properly notify a supervisor, id. at 4;
(3) was informed that calling his work voice mail and hanging up was
improper, id.; (4) was told that he was making outside line calls to his
personal cell phone and connecting those calls to the customer survey,
id. at 4-5; (5) admits to advising a customer to disconnect the
customer’s cable to get faster customer service even though Qualters
maintains he was helping the customer with an urgent problem, id. at
5-6; and (6) admits to other violations discovered during Bresnan’s
audit of his calls on January 28, 2012, but claims the audit was of
limited duration and scope, revealed minor issues, and was not part of
the reason for his discharge, id. at 6-7.
Bresnan also argues that the Court is required to accept
Bresnan’s evidence as true if Qualters maintains that he has no
recollection of the facts underlying the evidence. Id. at 7-8. And,
Bresnan argues, Qualters’ position that mistakes identified during the
audit of his calls were “minor” is not true. Id. at 8-9.
From a review of the record, the Court concludes that Qualters
has presented evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material
fact respecting whether Bresnan had good cause to discharge him. It is
-18-
for a jury to weigh the credibility of the testimony of Qualter, as
reflected in the information contained in his sworn affidavit and other
evidence of record, against Bresnan’s evidence in the final written
warning and elsewhere. See Weber v. Delta Dental Ins. Co., 882
F.Supp.2d 1195, 1198-1200 (D. Mont. 2012). If the jury were to give
sufficient weight to Qualter’s evidence, it could determine that the
reasons Bresnan has given for Qualters’ discharge were false,
whimsical, arbitrary or capricious, and unrelated to the needs of
Bresnan’s business. Johnson, 152 P.3d at 733 (quoting Kestell, 858
P.2d at 8); see also Baumgart, 332 P.3d at 231. And jurors also must
determine whether, from the totality of the evidence presented,
Bresnan’s reasons for discharging Qualters were pretextual and not the
honest reason for his discharge. Thus, summary judgment on Qualters’
claim that his discharge was without good cause should be denied.
B.
Written Personnel Policy
Bresnan argues that it did not violate its written personnel
policies when it discharged Qualters. ECF 28 at 13-14. Thus, it
argues, Qualters cannot survive its summary judgment motion
respecting his claim that Bresnan violated its written personnel
-19-
policies when it discharged him. Id.
Qualters responds that Bresnan gave him only one written
warning during his employment. ECF 35 at 13-14. He argues that all
issues in the warning had been completely resolved and that he had
improved his conduct before Bresnan discharged him. Because there
was no legitimate reason for his discharge, Qualters argues, his
discharge violated Bresnan’s written personnel policy. Id.
The provision in Bresnan’s employee handbook that Qualters
claims Bresnan violated provides, in relevant part, as follows:
[1] Where a performance issue has been identified, verbal
counseling, a verbal warning documented to file, or a formal
written reprimand with or without suspension may be
issued to make you aware of the severity of the situation
and provide you with an opportunity to improve your
performance or conduct. [2] Where prior steps have not
solved the problem or if the problem so warrants, a
performance improvement plan may be issued or developed
to assist you in achieving short- and long-term results by
focusing on specific areas that need improvement within a
given timeframe. [3] Under some circumstances, the
Company may take corrective action up to and including
termination of employment without prior corrective action
where, for example, there are serious infractions of
Company policies or if the Company believes that additional
corrective action is unlikely to resolve the problem.
ECF 27-5 at 35.
Respecting the first sentence of the foregoing provision, on the
-20-
current record it is undisputed that Bresnan provided Qualters with a
“final written warning” identifying Qualters’ performance deficiencies
as perceived by Bresnan. See ECF 27-3 at 1-2. It cannot reasonably be
disputed that the written warning made Qualters aware of the severity
of the situation when it provided:
Your job is in jeopardy . . . [and] [a]ny further instances [of
alleged performance deficiencies] will result in termination
of your employment. Continued violations of any other
company work standards, policies and/or procedures,
including attendance policies, may lead to future
disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Id. at 2.
Respecting the second and third sentences of the provision, as
discussed above, genuine issues of material fact exist respecting
whether Qualters’ performance improved and whether perceived
deficiencies were resolved. Also, as noted, fact issues exist respecting
whether any of Qualters’ alleged performance deficiencies amounted to
“serious infractions” of Bresnan’s policies sufficient to constitute good
cause for his discharge and whether the reasons Bresnan has given for
Qualters’ discharge were false, whimsical, arbitrary or capricious, and
unrelated to Bresnan’s business needs. Conflicting inferences could be
drawn from the conflicting evidence detailed above. See Williams v.
-21-
Plum Creek Timber Co., Inc., 264 P.3d 1090, 1097-98 (Mont. 2011)
(citing Hager v. J.C. Billion, Inc., 184 P.3d 340, 343 (Mont. 2008)
(whether an employer violated its own written policies is a question of
fact for the jury)). Such conflicts fall squarely within the province of a
jury at trial and are not appropriately resolved on summary judgment.
Id. at 1097 (citations omitted).
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Bresnan’s
summary judgment motion (ECF 26) be DENIED, and that the Court
set this matter for trial.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve
a copy of the Findings and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge upon the parties. The parties are advised that
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, any objections to the findings and
recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court and copies
served on opposing counsel within fourteen (14) days after entry hereof,
or objection is waived.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Carolyn S. Ostby
United States Magistrate Judge
-22-
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?