Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06865/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06865-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAKILA SALAZAR,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

WILLIAM HENDERSON, et al.,

)

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:00 CV 6865 AWI DLB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

[DOC # 104]

On May 10, 2005, the Court granted Defendant’s application for order shortening time to

hear a motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for

damages. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 26, 2005. Kimberly Gaab appeared

for Defendant and Stephen Wainer appeared for Plaintiff. 

This employment discrimination action was originally filed in the Northern District of

California and transferred to this Court on November 1, 2000. On June 5, 2003, the Court

partially granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to a stipulation entered

between the parties and filed on September 29, 2003, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on the

same day alleging three claims arising out of his employment and termination from the Postal

Service. On March 24, 2004, the Court partially granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss certain

Case 1:00-cv-06865-DLB Document 110 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

claims in Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff has two (2) claims remaining after the order:

1) discrimination in Employment based on retaliation in termination under Title VII; and 2)

discrimination in employment based on hostile work environment retaliation under Title VII. 

On June 24, 2004, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling order which reopened

discovery on the issue of Plaintiff’s damages since August 2001 and set the trial for March 3,

2005. However, the Court did not set an additional date for dispositive motions. Thereafter, the

Court granted Defendant’s motion to continue the trial to June 21, 2005. Based on the Court’s

schedule, the trial was continued to September 20, 2005 in Courtroom 5. The Pretrial

Conference is scheduled for August 5, 2005.

Defendant brings the present motion seeking leave to file a motion for partial summary

judgment on the issue of Plaintiff’s damages. At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel

advised that he was not opposed to Defendant’s filing a motion for partial summary judgment on

the issue of damages.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment

is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion shall be filed on or before May 27, 2005. Plaintiff’s

opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before June 17, 2005 and Defendant’s reply shall be

filed on or before June 24, 2005. The motion for summary judgment shall be heard on July 8,

2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06865-DLB Document 110 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2