Shah v. Meier Enterprises, Inc., et al

Filing 101

ORDER: Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. # 96 ), which are considered by this Court as a Motion for Reconsideration, are DENIED. Signed on 2/20/2018 by Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. (jtj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHANTUBHAI SHAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEIER ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Washington Corporation; PAUL GIEVER,
CEO/President; STEVEN ANDERSON, an
Individual; BOBBI KEEN, an Individual;
MEIER ENTERPRISES OFFICERS,
Individuals; MEIER ENTERPRISES
DIRECTORS, Individuals; MEIER
ENTERPRISES EMPLOYEE OWNERS,
Individuals;
Defendants.
____________________________________

) Civil No.: 3:17-cv-00226-JE
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JELDERKS, Magistrate Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Shah brings this action against Defendants Meier Enterprises, Inc.
(“Meier”); and individuals Paul Giever, Steven Anderson, Bobbi Keen, alleging age and race and
national origin discrimination under federal and Washington state laws, whistle blower
retaliation under Oregon and Washington state laws and common law retaliatory wrongful
discharge.
On January 5, 2018, Defendants filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(d),
seeking a continuance of their deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #79). On January 10, 2018, full consent by all parties to jurisdiction by a U.S.
ORDER – 1

Magistrate Judge was obtained. Plaintiff filed his Response to the Rule 56(d) motion on January
18, 2018 (Dkt. #94). On January 22, 2018, after reviewing Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiff’s
Response, this Court entered an Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. #92). On
January 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Opinion and
Order for Defendants’ Motion to Continue” (Dkt. #96). Defendants’ filed their Response to
Plaintiff’s Objections on February 14, 2018 (Dkt. #99).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s submission and Defendants’ Response. It appears
from the wording of Defendants’ Response that it was assumed that the Objection would be
reviewed by a District Judge. However, because this case now has full consents to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction, a District Judge will no longer be involved with the proceedings and all
matters at the trial court level will be resolved by this Magistrate Judge by opinion and order.
Accordingly, I will treat Plaintiff’s Objections as a Motion for Reconsideration and, for
the reasons set out in my previous Opinion and Order, deny the motion.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. #96), which are considered by this Court as a Motion for
Reconsideration, are DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of February, 2018.

/s/ John Jelderks
John Jelderks
U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER – 2