Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01772/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01772-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLANDO GRAVES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHNSON CONTROL WORLD SERVICES,

INC. et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-1772 SC

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Olando Graves ("Plaintiff" or "Graves") filed this

action alleging, inter alia, that his former employer, Defendant

Johnson Control World Services ("Defendant" or "Johnson Control")

discriminated against him based on his race in violation of state

and federal law. On January 17, 2006, Defendant moved for summary

judgment, and on March 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order

granting Defendant's motion in its entirety. Plaintiff has now

filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

("FRCP") seeking to have the March 13, 2006 Order vacated and the

matter set for trial. 

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion is

DENIED. 

//

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 7
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 Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on

Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief because those claims

were governed by a contract between the parties, which designated

limited circumstances under which Plaintiff could obtain relief. 

Those circumstances were not implicated by the facts of this case. 

Plaintiff apparently does not quarrel with this finding. See

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment at 2 ("Pl's. Mem.")

2

II. BACKGROUND

The facts surrounding this case have been set forth at length

in previous Orders of this Court, familiarity with which is

presumed. See Docket ## 22 & 62. The Court granted Defendant's

motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's first, second, and

fifth claims because the Court found that either the allegedly

discriminatory acts did not amount to adverse employment actions,

or because Plaintiff had wholly failed to present any evidence to

counter the record proffered by Defendant that demonstrated

racially neutral reasons for taking the actions Plaintiff claims

were motivated by impermissible discriminatory animus.1

Specifically, the Court found that Defendant had proffered

substantial evidence negating or offering racially neutral

explanations for each element of Plaintiff's prima facie case, and

that Plaintiff could not meet his burden under the shifting

approach employed by Courts evaluating discrimination claims at

the summary judgment phase by relying wholly on his statements of

opinion concerning Defendant's motivation and a recitation of

Defendant's allegedly discriminatory actions. Accordingly, the

Court granted Defendant's motion and entered judgment in its

favor. 

Plaintiff now moves for alteration or amendment of that

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 7
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 3

judgment because, Plaintiff asserts, newly discovered evidence

demonstrates that genuine issues of fact exist, and that

alteration or amendment is necessary to avoid manifest injustice.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

FRCP 59 does not itself set forth a standard for alteration

or amendment of judgment, however courts have recognized four

grounds which justify altering or amending a judgment or order:

(1) to incorporate an intervening change in the law; (2) to

reflect new evidence not previously available; (3) to correct a

clear legal error; and (4) to prevent manifest injustice. See

EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d 110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997). 

Evidence is not "newly discovered" within the meaning of FRCP

59 if it was in the moving party's possession at the time of trial

or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. See

Engelhard Industries v. Research Instrumental, 324 F.2d 347, 352

(9th Cir. 1963). Additionally, the proffering party must have

acted with due diligence in attempting to discover the evidence,

and the evidence must be of such magnitude that production of it

earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the

case. See Coastal Transfer v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208,

210 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that the newly obtained declarations of

three former co-workers qualify as newly discovered evidence and

demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists,

precluding summary judgment for Defendant with respect to

Plaintiff's first, second, and fifth claims for relief. 

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 7
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 4

See Pl's. Mem. at 5. Plaintiff also contends that the Court must

alter or amend the judgment in order to avoid manifest injustice. 

See id. 

A. Newly Discovered Evidence

As noted above, to be considered "newly discovered," evidence

could not have been obtainable through exercise of reasonable

diligence. See Engelhard Industries, 324 F.2d at 352. Plaintiff

submits that the declarations he now relies on for relief were

unavailable to him prior to consideration of Defendant's motion

for summary judgment because "[the declarants] had not been

located, interviewed, or deposed." Pl.'s Mem. at 5. 

Plaintiff makes this assertion despite the fact that, as

early as March 2005, he was aware that these three declarants were

"persons who have knowledge of [his] claim." See Declaration of

Scott P. Inciardi, Ex. B at 3 ("Inciardi Decl.") (reproducing

Plaintiff's responses to special interrogatories dated March 14,

2005). As Defendant points out, two of the purportedly new

declarants - Alissa Morelan and Stan Thomas - were listed along

with their phone numbers. Id. And, in the new declarations

submitted, each declarant plainly states that Graves "frequently

discussed with [the declarant] his mistreatment," including

information related to each of the allegedly discriminatory acts. 

See Declaration of Alissa Morelan ¶ 4, Declaration of Stan Thomas

¶ 3, and Declaration of C.J. Gracia ¶ 3. Far from representing

obscure, fringe figures who furtively observed Defendant's conduct

yet only recently stepped forward to support Plaintiff's claim,

these three declarations come from some of the witnesses most

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 7
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 5

obviously likely to have information supporting Plaintiff's case.

Apparently sensing the weakness in his argument, Plaintiff

counters in his reply brief that, 

[w]ithout conceding any issues regarding the diligence

expended or required to obtain the testimony of Stan Thomas

and Alissa Morelan...plaintiff contends that his failure to

obtain the testimony of C.J. Gracia was not for lack of

reasonable diligence. C.J. Gracia was, as a practical

matter, unavailable to plaintiff as he was an employee of

defendant through February, 2006...and, because of the 5

deposition limit in this case, plaintiff was only able to

depose a few of defendants [sic] employees. 

Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

at 4 ("Pl's. Reply").

The Court notes, as an aside, that regardless of any limit on

depositions, Plaintiff did not depose Mr. Gracia in support of the

instant motion, and has not explained why he was previously unable

to obtain a declaration like the one he now relies on. The Court

finds that Plaintiff's explanation for why he was unable to obtain

any of this new evidence prior to consideration of Defendant's

motion for summary judgment wholly without force or persuasive

effect. Simply stated, Plaintiff has not met his burden of

demonstrating that the new evidence could not have been obtained

through exercise of reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the Court

finds that the new declarations do not qualify as "newly

discovered evidence," and are therefore inappropriate for

consideration in connection with Plaintiff's motion to alter or

amend the judgment. See Engelhard Industries, 324 F.2d at 352;

see also Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries,

Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996); Dale and Shelby

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 7
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 6

Superette & Deli v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 838 F. Supp.

1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993).

B. Manifest Injustice

Plaintiff further argues that alteration or amendment of

judgment is necessary to avoid manifest injustice. See Pl.'s Mem.

at 5. The Court disagrees. Considering the record as it stood at

the time judgment was entered, the Court finds that Defendant met

its burden of providing racially-neutral reasons for taking its

allegedly discriminatory actions. Plaintiff did not use his

opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment to set forth

other evidence of discriminatory animus or provide additional

evidence of discrimination, but rather relied on bare-bones

briefing and a declaration that either duplicated the allegations

of the Complaint, or rested on Plaintiff's opinions as to

Defendant's motivations. See Docket ## 47 & 48. Those opinions,

however, were not supported by any other declaration, deposition,

document, or other evidence, and therefore added little or nothing

to Plaintiff's opposition. In sum, the Court finds that a review

of the evidentiary record as it stood at the time of summary

judgment does not indicate that the Court's decision caused

manifest injustice.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 6 of 7
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 7

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to alter

or amend the judgment is DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006 ____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01772-SC Document 78 Filed 05/11/06 Page 7 of 7