Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00475-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELDRIDGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

AND COORDINATED CASES:

Miller, Leon v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00457 VC

Palmer, Xavier v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00458 VC

Noble, Paul C. v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00461 VC

Jones Jr., Johnnie E. v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00462 VC

Roane, Glen v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00464 VC

Ricketts, David v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00465 VC

Tom, Lester v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00466 VC

Crocker, Sal v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00468 VC

Manswell, Anthony v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00469 VC

Minter, Karl v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00470 VC

Washington, Erwin v. United Airlines, Inc. et 

al. 4:15-cv-00471 VC

Wilson, Darryl v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00472 VC

Sherman, Leo v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00473 VC

Haney, Ken v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00474 VC

John, Richard v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00475 VC

Briscoe, Odie v. United Airlines, Inc. et al. 

3:15-cv-00476 VC

Hartsfield, Terrence v. United Airlines, Inc. 

et al. 3:15-cv-00477 VC

Case No. 12-cv-02730-VC 

ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 77 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The following memorializes the key points and key deadlines stemming from today's case 

management conference:

The final sentence of Paragraph 29 of the Seventh Amended Complaints in the Haney and 

Hartsfield cases are stricken.

The motions to dismiss the Seventh Amended Complaints in the Haney and Hartsfield 

cases are denied. The court will issue a written order explaining its reasoning.

The deadline to complete initial disclosures in the Haney and Hartsfield cases is December 

21, 2015.

In the remaining cases, the plaintiffs' requests to amend their complaints yet again are 

granted, for the reasons stated on the record at the case management conference. The deadline to 

file amended complaints is January 8, 2016. The deadline to respond to these amended complaints 

(by filing an answer, a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike, or some combination thereof) is 

February 8, 2016. The oppositions to any motion to dismiss or motion to strike is due February 

19, 2016. Any replies are due February 26, 2016. A hearing will take place on these motions on 

March 10, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. If the defendants wish to move to dismiss these amended 

complaints on the same grounds as those asserted in support of the motions to dismiss the Haney 

and Hartsfield complaints, they may do so in a one-sentence motion designed to preserve their 

rights. 

At the next case management conference, the parties should be prepared to set a schedule 

for the adjudication of any motions to transfer that the defendants wish to file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00475-VC Document 77 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2