Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG

E-filed on 5/19/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REHAN SHEIKH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1 through

20, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-07-00262 RMW

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST

FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES";

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION

[Docket No. 50]

On April 8, 2008, the court issued an order setting a briefing schedule on plaintiff's second

motion to remand this action to state court. Because plaintiff had not set a hearing date for his

motion to remand, the court set the briefing schedule and hearing date to coincide with that of a

motion to compel arbitration subsequently filed by defendant Cisco Systems. Both plaintiff's motion

to remand and defendant's motion to compel are currently set for hearing on May 23, 2008 at 9:00

a.m. 

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 6
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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 2

On April 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a document titled "2nd Request for Accommodation for

Individuals with Disabilities." See Docket No. 50. In it, he asks: (1) that the court schedule a

hearing on his motion to remand; (2) that he be given permission to attend court via telephone; (3)

that his motion to remand be heard before defendant's motion to compel arbitration and that he be

granted 45 days after the court's ruling on his motion to remand to oppose defendant's motion to

compel arbitration, should such an opposition be necessary; (4) that the court consider for purposes

of the motion to remand exhibits previously submitted by plaintiff in support of his other motions,

particularly a letter from Unum Provident indicating that plaintiff's long term disability benefits have

been paid; (5) for help with procedural questions such as how to schedule a hearing (specifically

asking for permission to ask the court's clerk questions via phone or email); and (6) that the court

appoint counsel to assist him. Plaintiff's request also indicates that he intends to file a motion for

sanctions and "extra costs that plaintiff incurred" against defendant "for non-compliance of court

order to confer" and because "there is no valid justification for defense to bring a motion to compel

binding arbitration at this time." Defendant filed a declaration opposing plaintiff's requests. See

Docket No. 55.

The court has scheduled a hearing on plaintiff's remand – May 23, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. –

therefore, plaintiff's request (1) above is moot.

With regard to request (2), plaintiff is hereby given permission to attend the May 23, 2008

hearing by telephone. The courtroom deputy will call his phone number, (209) 982-9039, on Friday

May 23, 2008, sometime between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff should await the court's call. 

Failure to answer the phone may result in a failure to appear at the hearing. If plaintiff would like to

be contacted at a different number, he must inform the court's Courtroom Deputy, Jackie Garcia, at

(408) 535-5375.

Defendant opposes plaintiff's request (3) for additional time. Defendant asserts that for

economy's sake, plaintiff's motion to remand and defendant's motion to compel arbitration should be

heard together as the court intended by issuing its April 8, 2008 Order. Further, defendant's

counsel's declaration states that while plaintiff indicated to defendant's counsel that he was too

unwell to respond to defendant's motion to compel arbitration, he had meanwhile accelerated the

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 6
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 link appears to be: 

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/FAQ.nsf/60126b66e42d004888256d4e007bce29/14de5a2dfcd

aa08c88256ebc0054574f?OpenDocument

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 3

prosecution of his worker's compensation claim before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. 

Declaration of Marlene Muraco ("Muraco Decl.") ¶ 6. Defendant also points out that giving plaintiff

45 days past the time the court rules on the motion to remand would give plaintiff over 3 months to

oppose the motion to compel arbitration. While the court understands defendant's desire to keep this

case moving forward, it is also cognizant of the fact that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that the

resolution of his motion to remand may make opposing defendant's motion to compel arbitration

unnecessary. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff's request in part. The court hereby

continues the briefing schedule and hearing for defendant's motion to compel arbitration to give

plaintiff thirty (30) days after the court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to remand to respond. The court

will set the briefing and hearing schedule in its order on plaintiff's motion.

Although defendant generally opposes request (4) above that the court consider documents

plaintiff has previously submitted in support of his prior motion to remand, defendant does not

oppose plaintiff's request to consider the Unum letter. The court will grant plaintiff's request (4) and

will consider the documents he has previously submitted.

Plaintiff's requests (5) and (6) ask the court to provide varying levels of help to plaintiff with

regard to pursuing his claims. As plaintiff is well aware, the court is not permitted to provide

plaintiff with legal advice either by telephone or by email. Nor does it have resources to provide the

type of procedural assistance he requests even to the extent that such advice would not otherwise be

legal advice. The court has compiled a handbook for pro se litigants to help unrepresented parties

with proceeding in federal court. This handbook is available from the court's website at

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ by clicking on the "Pro Se Handbook" link under the "COURT

INFORMATION" heading at the right side of the screen.1

 Further, the court declines to appoint

counsel in this matter. Plaintiff may renew his request following the court's ruling on his motion to

remand. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff's requests (5) and (6) above.

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 6
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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 4

Finally, while plaintiff seems to indicate that he intends to seek sanctions against defendant's

counsel "for non-compliance of court order to confer" and for bringing the motion to compel

arbitration, the court cautions that plaintiff should be sure he has a reasonable basis for bringing

such motions. If there is no order specifically directing defendant's counsel to confer with plaintiff,

it is highly unlikely that sanctions will be awarded. Further, it appears defendant brought its motion

to compel arbitration with at least a reasonable belief that the dispute between the parties is subject

to arbitration under plaintiff's employment agreements with Cisco, therefore, plaintiff should be

certain that he has a basis for requesting sanctions. Bringing frivolous motions can result in plaintiff

being sanctioned himself. 

ORDER

For the forgoing reasons:

• Plaintiff's request (1) is denied as moot. The court has already scheduled a hearing

on his motion to remand to state court. The hearing will be held on Friday, May 23,

2008 at 9:00.

• Plaintiff's request (2) is granted. The courtroom deputy will call his phone number,

(209) 982-9039, on Friday, May 23, 2008, sometime between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m. 

To be contacted at a different number, plaintiff must inform the court's Courtroom

Deputy, Jackie Garcia, by calling (408) 535-5375.

• Plaintiff's request (3) is granted in part. The briefing schedule and hearing for

defendant's motion to compel arbitration will be continued to give plaintiff thirty (30)

days after the court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to remand to respond. The court will

set the briefing and hearing schedule in its order on plaintiff's motion to remand.

• Plaintiff's request (4) is granted. The court will consider in support of his second

motion to remand the documents that plaintiff previously submitted in support of his

prior motion to remand and his motion for reconsideration.

• Plaintiff's request (5) is denied. Plaintiff is directed to the Handbook for Litigants

Without A Lawyer, located on the court's home page at

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/.

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 6
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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 5

• Plaintiff's request (6) is denied without prejudice. The court will not appoint counsel

for plaintiff.

DATED: 5/18/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S "2nd REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES"; ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING ON CISCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 6

A copy of this order was mailed on 5/19/08 to:

Plaintiff:

Rehan Sheikh

PO Box 869

French Camp, CA 95231-0869

PRO SE

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Plaintiff

Rehan Ayyub Sheikh rehansheikh@yahoo.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Marlene S. Muraco mmuraco@littler.com 

Erica H. Kelley ehermatz@littler.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 58 Filed 05/19/08 Page 6 of 6