Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04351/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04351-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ROY L. MORRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04351 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULINGS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 27, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court requires that Plaintiff Roy L. Morrison attend the hearing on January

27, 2006, either in person or by telephone.

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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. Order to Show Cause 

The Court tentatively intends to impose sanctions in connection with the Order to Show

Cause, including but not limited to dismissal or monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), and Northern District Civil Local Rule 1-4, .

1. The Court shall require Plaintiff’s counsel to address in detail his explanation for

failing to respond to the Government’s requests to meet and confer regarding the

motion to transfer venue. Further, the Court requires an explanation from

counsel as to the basis for asserting venue in the Central District and the

allegations in the Complaint regarding Plaintiff’s residence.

2. The Court shall also require Plaintiff’s counsel to provide additional detail

regarding the computer failure, including the timing of that failure in connection

with the motion filed in this case, and his failure to provide initial disclosures to

Defendants, and any other evidence in Plaintiff’s counsel’s possession to support

the statements made in his declaration.

3. Is the Court authorized to order Plaintiff’s counsel to pay the Government its fees

and/or costs incurred with respect to the motion to transfer venue and costs

incurred with respect to filing the Statement of Non-Receipt of Opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to meet and confer with

Government counsel as required by the Local Rules?

B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The Court tentatively GRANTS the motion to dismiss. 

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ arguments that the cases he cites in

support of his argument that he should be permitted to pursue a claim under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 or 1985 are not applicable because those cases involved

private employers, rather than the Federal Government?

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

2. Does Plaintiff dispute Defendants’ contention that he was required to consult

with an EEOC counselor as part of the exhaustion requirement? Where in the

Complaint can the Court find allegations that Plaintiff began that process?

3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: January 26, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 15 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3