Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00507/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00507-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

Case No. 2:05-CV-00507-GEB-GGH – Stipulation to Filing First Amended Complaint; Order FITZER/

Fitzer v. Chevron.wpd

RICHARD M. ROGERS, #045843

MAYO & ROGERS

114 Sansome Street, #1310

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415/397-1515

Facsimile: 415/397-1540

Email: RogersRMR@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HEIDI M. FITZER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEIDI M. FITZER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, ARLENE

GAONA,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:05-CV-00507-GEB-GGH

Case filed: 01/26/05

Removed to USDC-ED: 03/11/05

Trial date: 06/13/06

STIPULATION TO FILING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]

ORDER 

Case 2:05-cv-00507-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Case No. 2:05-CV-00507-GEB-GGH – Stipulation to Filing First Amended Complaint; Order FITZER/

Fitzer v. Chevron.wpd 1

The parties hereby stipulate that Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint in the form

of Exhibit 1 hereto, subject to Defendants’ right to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of

Plaintiff’s service of the filed Amended Complaint.

The reasons for the proposed First Amended Complaint are:

1. The amendments allege matters which occurred after the Complaint herein was filed,

to wit: retaliatory conduct which caused Plaintiff increased emotional distress. (Fourth, Fifth, and

Sixth Causes of Action)

2. It would be inefficient to require Plaintiff to file a new and separate action on the new

matters.

3. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when new acts occur after a

complaint is filed. Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 1994); Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920

F.2d 1451, 1456-1457, n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 06/07/05 MAYO & ROGERS

By: /s/

RICHARD M. ROGERS

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: 06/07/05 FILICE BROWN EASSA & MCLEOD LLP

By: /s/

DELIA A. ISVORANU

Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00507-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 2