Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01915/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01915-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LAKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Defendant.

NO. C04-1915 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court on Monday, May 9, 2005, on Defendant Michael

Chertoff’s motion for summary judgment. Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan U. Lee

appeared for Defendant, but there was no appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Kenneth Lakes. The

Court directed its courtroom deputy to contact Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. David Leonard Ross,

by telephone. Mr. Ross was not in his office, nor did his staff provide any indication that

Mr. Ross planned to attend the hearing. Plaintiff also failed to file any opposition papers to

Defendant’s motion. Upon careful consideration of Defendant’s papers and relevant law, the

Court finds good cause to GRANT Defendant’s motion for the reasons discussed below.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to material facts

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Toscano

v. Prof’l Golfers Ass’n, 258 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2001). Material facts are those that may

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

A dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury

to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. The court may not weigh the evidence and must

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255. 

Case 3:04-cv-01915-TEH Document 29 Filed 05/11/05 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

A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the

basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses

that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof at trial, it

must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the

moving party. Id. at 322-23. However, on an issue for which its opponent will have the burden

of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely by “pointing out to the District Court . . .

that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. If the

moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must then “set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” in order to defeat the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this suit on May 14, 2004, alleging that Defendant violated Title VII by

discriminating against Plaintiff based on race and retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in

protected equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) activity. Defendant served requests for

admission by mail on Plaintiff’s counsel on February 18, 2005. Plaintiff’s responses were

therefore due on March 23, 2005. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) (providing that matters are deemed

admitted unless a response is made within 30 days after service of the request); Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(e) (extending time for response by 3 days when service is by mail). However, Plaintiff failed

to respond.

As a result, all matters subject to the requests for admission are deemed to be admitted

and “conclusively established.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)-(b). Rule 36(b) provides that Plaintiff

may file a motion to amend or withdraw his admissions, but Plaintiff has not filed any such

motion. Thus, among the matters deemed admitted and conclusively established are:

1. That Defendant did not discriminate against Plaintiff based on race (Request for

Admission [“RFA”] No. 1);

Case 3:04-cv-01915-TEH Document 29 Filed 05/11/05 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

1Defendant asserts that the named individuals in these requests for admissions are

individuals whom Plaintiff identified as former supervisors. However, Defendants submitted

no evidence that the individuals were, in fact, Plaintiff’s former supervisors or that Plaintiff so

identified the named individuals.

3

2. That Defendant did not retaliate against plaintiff based on his prior EEO activity

(RFA No. 2);

3. That none of Plaintiff’s supervisors or co-workers discriminated against Plaintiff

based on race (RFAs Nos. 5 and 6);

4. That various individuals, whom Plaintiff reportedly identified as former

supervisors, did not discriminate against Plaintiff based on race or retaliate against

him based on protected EEO activity (RFAs Nos. 10-41);1

5. That none of the allegedly adverse employment actions detailed in the complaint

had anything to do with Plaintiff’s race (RFAs Nos. 42-46);

6. That Plaintiff suffered no emotional distress as a result of the events in the

complaint (RFA No. 47); and

7. That Plaintiff is claiming no lost wages as a result of the events in the complaint

(RFA No. 51).

Given these admissions, the Court concludes that no reasonable juror could find for

Plaintiff, and awarding summary judgment to Defendant is therefore appropriate. Accordingly,

with good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 05/11/05 /s/ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-01915-TEH Document 29 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 3