Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01641-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Currently set for hearing and decision on February 29, 2016 is Defendant’s second motion 

for summary judgment. The Court has received an opposition, which is essentially a Rule 56(d) 

motion for additional time and discovery. The Court has also received a reply. 

On January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend. See Doc. No. 56. As part of that 

motion, Plaintiff submitted his own declaration and the declaration of Cory Hood. See id. In 

pertinent part, Plaintiff and Hood declare that two locomotive engineers, who had less seniority 

than Plaintiff, were transferred from Bakersfield to Roseville with seniority and without the

involvement of the union. See id. This information appears contrary to the notion that a transfer 

to a different zone with seniority can only be accomplished through the permission of the union. 

Cf. Doc. No. 43. Although filed in connection with the motion to amend, it appears to the Court 

that the declarations could have relevance to the issue of reasonable accommodation. Therefore, 

the Court intends to consider these declarations in connection with the second summary judgment 

motion. The Court will give Defendant the opportunity to file a supplemental reply that addresses 

TREVOR WEEKS,

Plaintiff

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT 

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 29, 

2016 HEARING AND ORDER FOR 

ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 67 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s and Hood’s declarations.1 Furthermore, the Court will give Plaintiff the opportunity to 

file a sur-reply to Defendant’s supplemental reply. 

In order for the parties to have sufficient time to submit the additional briefing, the Court 

will vacate the currently set February 29, 2016 hearing date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 29, 2016 hearing on Defendant’s second motion for summary judgment is 

VACATED;

2. Defendant may file a supplemental reply, as described above, within ten (10) days of 

service of this order;

3. Plaintiff may file sur-reply to the supplemental reply within seven (7) days of service of 

the supplemental reply; and

4. Once the Court has received the additional briefing, unless the Court determines that a 

hearing will be helpful, the Court will decide the matter on the submissions of the parties 

without oral argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Defendant is free to make any “procedural” arguments that it may feel warranted with respect to Plaintiff’s and 

Hood’s respective declarations. However, in addition to any “procedural” arguments, Defendant shall also make 

arguments that address the substance/merits of the information contained in the declarations.

Case 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT Document 67 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2