Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00505-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY COSBY,

NO. CIV. S-08-505 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

AUTOZONE, INC., JIM KULBACKI

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

On November 12, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the

tentative pretrial order issued by the court on October 29, 2009.

These objections included, inter alia, the addition of three

disputed factual issues and one point of law. Defendant promptly

opposed the addition of two of the disputed factual issues and the

point of law. Plaintiff also sought to add numerous discovery

documents to the pretrial order and to amend his exhibit list. The

court issued an order on November 24, 2009, for plaintiff to file

a response addressing defendant’s opposition to the addition of the

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 42 Filed 12/24/09 Page 1 of 4
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

2

factual issues and point of law as well as to clarify the discovery

documents he seeks to admit as direct evidence. The court also

ordered that plaintiff’s amended exhibit list will replace the list

from the tentative pretrial order. 

As an initial matter, the court will make the changes

indicated in plaintiff’s reply, doc. no. 31, to the discovery

documents in the final pretrial order.

I. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

As to the contested addition of disputed factual issues nos.

55-56, the court will not add these issues to the pretrial

statement. These factual issues concern a pattern of retaliation

against employees who engaged in protective activities and an

annual scheme to terminate employees who engaged in such

activities. In plaintiff’s reply, he suggests a modification of the

proposed factual issues to the following:

Whether or not AutoZone intentionally waited to

terminate Plaintiff until the end of the fiscal year as

a common, routine, planned or habitual process of

retaliation against an employee who engaged in

protective activities during the prior fiscal year?

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defndant’s [sic] Response to Pretrial Order

Objections at 2. Neither the originally suggested additions nor the

modification have any support in plaintiff’s complaint. At no time

in the complaint did plaintiff allege that he was terminated as

part of an official or unofficial policy to terminate employees who

engaged in protected activities. Moreover, plaintiff does not cite

to his complaint at all to support his argument that he is not

adding a new claim. If plaintiff had discovered evidence that

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 42 Filed 12/24/09 Page 2 of 4
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

3

AutoZone had a practice of terminating individuals who engaged in

protected activities at the end of its fiscal year, he could have

filed a motion to amend his complaint to reflect this newly

discovered evidence before the close of law and motion. However,

plaintiff cannot add this new factual dispute at this stage of

litigation. Defendant has a right to discovery on plaintiff’s

claim, and regardless of whether plaintiff’s claim is based on a

pattern, practice, or process, plaintiff must have at least pled

some facts in his complaint to put defendants on notice of this

theory. Thus, plaintiff’s request to add disputed factual issues

nos. 55 and 56 is denied. Plaintiff’s unopposed request to add

disputed factual issue no. 6 to section F is granted.

II. POINT OF LAW

Plaintiff also seeks to modify point of law subsection (e)

to include a failure to prevent retaliation under FEHA. The

tentative pretrial order currently only includes the failure to

prevent discrimination. Defendant argues that the point of law

should not be amended because plaintiff never pled a failure to

prevent retaliation in his complaint, but rather only pled a

failure to prevent discrimination. Plaintiff responds that

retaliation is a type of discrimination, which was adequately

pled in his complaint, and thereby that plaintiff need not have

stated the explicit words “failure to prevent retaliation” in

his complaint to have a claim for such failure. A substantial

portion of the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint concern the

treatment plaintiff received after informing defendant’s

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 42 Filed 12/24/09 Page 3 of 4
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

4

employees of his disability and seeking to initiate a good faith

interactive process for accommodation of his disability.

Defendant was thereby on sufficient notice that plaintiff’s

claim for failure to prevent discrimination included both

failure to prevent discrimination because of his disability and

to prevent discrimination because of retaliation. For the

foregoing reasons, the court will modify the final pretrial

order to include both discrimination and retaliation in point of

law subsection (e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 23, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00505-KJM-DAD Document 42 Filed 12/24/09 Page 4 of 4