Whitfield v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. et al

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 2/23/2011. By Deputy Clerk: Colleen Larsen. ORDERED that 40 Motion for Clarification of the Court's January 31, 2001 Minute Order is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 38 Mi nute Order, to the extent that it directs the Clerk to enter judgment, is VACATED. The judgment 39 should be vacated, and the case should proceed with respect to Plaintiff's racial discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of establishing a Scheduling Order. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

-PAL Whitfield v. Pick Up Stix, Inc. et al

Doc. 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MR. HENRY A. WHITFIELD,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) PICK UP STIX, INC., a California ) corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) PRESENT: Deputy Clerk: EDWARD C. REED, JR. COLLEEN LARSEN

2:10-CV-00099-ECR-PAL MINUTES OF THE COURT DATE: February 23, 2011

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Reporter: NONE APPEARING

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) Counsel for Defendant(s) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (#40) for clarification of the Court's January 31, 2011 minute order (#38) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that our order (#38), to the extent that it directs the Clerk to enter judgment, is VACATED. The Court's January 31, 2011 minute order (#38) indicated that Plaintiff's amended complaint (#34) and memorandum (#36) in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (#35) have not sufficiently shown that the applicable statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. As such, the statute of limitations will not be tolled and Plaintiff's claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred as a matter of law. Our January 31, 2011 order (#38), however, did not address the viability of Plaintiff's racial discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. As stated in our

Dockets.Justia.com

December 10, 2010 order (#33), Plaintiff states a claim for racial discrimination claim under Title VII. In our January 31, 2011 minute order (#38), we erroneously instructed the Clerk to enter judgment in the case. The Clerk then entered judgment (#39) and closed the case. We should not have entered judgment while a claim remained pending in the case. The judgment (#39), therefore, should be vacated, and the case should proceed with respect to Plaintiff's racial discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of establishing a Scheduling Order. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By /s/ Deputy Clerk

2