Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01679/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1679/2058

___________

Harsh S. Katoch, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Mediq/PRN Life Support Systems, Inc.; *

John Does, 1-10 inclusive; David * UNPUBLISHED

Armstrong; Brad Thompson, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2007

Filed: April 26, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harsh S. Katoch appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary

judgment, denial of a motion to strike an affidavit, evidentiary decisions, and sanction

orders against his counsel. We affirm.1

Appellate Case: 06-1679 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302994
-2-

Katoch, a biomedical technician, was fired by Mediq/PRN Life Support

Systems, Inc. (“Mediq”), after having a physical altercation with a co-worker. Katoch

alleged claims of employment discrimination based on race, religion, color, national

origin, age, and disability against Mediq and former Mediq employees Brad

Thompson and Dave Armstrong under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

the Missouri Human Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055.

Katoch also alleged various tort and contract claims against Mediq, Thompson, and

Armstrong.

The district court dismissed Katoch’s employment discrimination claims under

Title VII and the MHRA against Thompson and Armstrong for failure to state a claim,

and the tort claims against Mediq for lack of jurisdiction. The district court then

dismissed the balance of the claims against Armstrong and Thompson for failure to

serve them with process in a timely manner, and later imposed sanctions on Katoch's

counsel for failure to comply with a court order. The district court then granted

summary judgment for Mediq on the remaining claims. In its summary judgment

order, the district court also denied Katoch’s motion to strike the affidavit of Lynne

Shapiro, a vice president for human resources at Mediq, which had been offered in

support of Mediq's motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Katoch contends that the district court erred by granting summary

judgment, by not striking the Shapiro affidavit, by making erroneous evidentiary

decisions, and by issuing sanction orders against his counsel. Having carefully

reviewed the record, we find no error in the district court’s disposition of Katoch’s

claims. See Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 469 F.3d 1158, 1159 (8th Cir.

2006) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment); United States v. Pugh, 445

F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court has discretion in both the exclusion of

expert testimony and the imposition of sanctions); Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d

470, 477 (8th Cir. 2005) (allowing for a “narrow and deferential” review of a district

court’s discovery rulings) (quoting Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc., 352 F.3d

Appellate Case: 06-1679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302994
-3-

358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003)); Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d

594, 600 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court has discretion to admit evidence). Therefore,

the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 47(b).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1679 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3302994