Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05636/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05636-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Docket No. 22.

2

 The Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Title VII claims as Plaintiff failed to

exhaust administrative remedies.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL A. JOSEPH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C06-05636 MJJ

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE AS MOOT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rafael A. Joseph’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Continuance.1

 For

the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion as moot and DISMISSES the case. 

Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on September 14, 2006, against Defendant Postmaster

General John E. Potter (“Defendant”) for a variety of claims related to his employment. Pursuant to

Title VII, Plaintiff alleged a hostile work environment, retaliation for prior complaints, harassment,

loss of pay and discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin. (Complaint at ¶¶ 4-6.) 

Additionally, he alleged a breach of contract by “the union.” (Id.) Defendant filed a Motion to

Dismiss on April 10, 2007. On June 20, 2007, this Court dismissed without leave Plaintiff’s Title

VII claims.2

 Furthermore, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against

Defendant because Plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a contract with Defendant. However,

Case 3:06-cv-05636-MJJ Document 25 Filed 11/06/07 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 granted Plaintiff leave to amend his breach of contract claim so he could plead additional

facts, and/or join additional parties, that give rise to a valid breach of contract claim. (Docket No. 21

at 9:5-10.) Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), if

any, within twenty days of service of the June 20, 2007 order. Plaintiff filed what appears to be a

Motion for Continuance on July 5, 2007, asking for an additional 30 days from July 10, 2007 to file

a FAC. However, more than three months later, and well past even the extension that Plaintiff

requested, Plaintiff has still failed to file a FAC.. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to file a FAC within the deadline originally established by the

Court’s June 20, 2007 order, as well as within the extended deadline sought in his request for a

continuance, the Court DENIES the pending Motion for Continuance as moot and DISMISSES the

case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05636-MJJ Document 25 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 2