Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 The court has set a September 25, 2007 deadline for the filing of dispositive

motions, and October 30, 2007 is the last date for a hearing on any such motion.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIOTR J. GARDIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant. /

No. C04-04086 HRL

Consolidated With: C04-04768 HRL

C05-01242 HRL

C05-01833 HRL

C06-04695 HRL

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR JUDGMENT, NOS. 1 THROUGH 6

[Docket Nos. 118, 120, 121, 122, 131, 134]

Plaintiff has filed six “Motions for Judgment” in which he asks this court to enter

judgment in his favor based upon a number of documents which he contends support his

allegations in this litigation. The motions have been noticed for separate hearings spread over

successive weeks in February and March 2007.

Attempting to dispose of this litigation in such piecemeal fashion is inefficient and is not

contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court suggests that plaintiff file a

single motion for summary judgment which addresses all issues and all supporting evidence.1

Moreover, at the status conference held on January 9, 2007, plaintiff stated that he is seeking

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 141 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

additional discovery from defendant. Therefore, the court concludes that it makes sense for

plaintiff to wait until he has all of his discovery before filing his motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s six pending motions for judgment are DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, and the noticed hearing dates are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 16, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 141 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd St. 

San Jose, CA 95110

Pro Se Plaintiff

Mary Susan Cain-Simon 

CA State Attorney General's Office 

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor 

P. O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Counsel for Defendant

Dated: ______________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

1/16/07 /s/

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 141 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3