Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 At the time defendant filed the instant motions, the trial date was scheduled for September 11,

2006. On September 6, 2006, at the request of plaintiff and without opposition by defendant, the trial

date was moved to October 23, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-00098 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO

CHARLOTTE BOSWELL

On September 5, 2006, less than a week before the then-scheduled trial date1 for plaintiff

Charlotte Boswell, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss or alternatively a

second motion for summary judgment, along with the substantive motion. (Docket Nos. 516 and 519).

The Court DENIES the motions as untimely. The deadline for filing dispositive motions was

September 2, 2005. See Docket No. 42. Defendant previously filed a motion for summary judgment

with regard to Ms. Boswell, and indeed that motion specifically addressed the merits of plaintiff’s sexual

harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge claims: the same claims that defendant now contends

are improperly before the Court. Defendant could have raised all of the newly-asserted arguments in

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 533 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court rejects defendant’s contention that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due

to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s administrative complaint stated that

she was “harassed” and “retaliated” against on account of her “sex,” and she identified Manager Norman

Stites as one of the two individuals responsible for such harassment and retaliation. The administrative

complaint also states that plaintiff was forced to quit her job. 

2

the previous timely motion for summary judgment, and defendant’s failure to do so will not be excused.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 533 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2