Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02294/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02294-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BROWN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-2294-GPC-NLS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE MOTION TO CLARIFY

[ECF No. 47]

v.

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

FOUNDATION, a California nonprofit corporation; BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, an unknown

entity; and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Before theCourt is Defendants San Diego State UniversityResearch Foundation

and Board of Trustees of the California State University’s (collectively, “Defendants”)

Motion to Clarify. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiff Robert Brown (“Plaintiff”) opposes. (ECF

No. 48.) Defendants seek to clarify whether this Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively,Partial Summary Judgment (the “MSJ

Order”), (ECF No. 40), granted partial summary judgment on two issues: (1) whether

there was any evidence of fraud, duress, or undue influence; and (2) whether the

Confidentiality Agreement was binding. (ECF No. 47-1, at 3–4.) The facts and

procedural posture of this case have been laid out in the MSJ Order. (See ECF No. 40.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states that “[a] party may move for summary

- 1 - 3:13-cv-2294-GPC-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02294-GPC-NLS Document 51 Filed 12/09/14 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

judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on

which summary judgment issought.” FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a) (emphasis added). The only

claims, defenses, or partsthereof identified by Defendants’ motion were “all plaintiff’s

claims except his age discrimination claims.” (See ECF No. 22, at 2.) While Defendants

stated that they were seeking “partial summary judgment” “in the alternative,” (see id.

at 1–2), they did not identify what claims, defenses, or parts thereof, if any, they were

seeking partialsummary judgment on. Because Defendants did not identify the specific

issues of fraud, duress, and undue influence, or confidentiality agreement validity as

ones they were seeking partial summary judgment on, the MSJ Order did not grant

partial summary judgment on those issues. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is

no need to further clarify the MSJ Order and DENIES Defendants’ motion to clarify,

(ECF No. 47).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 3:13-cv-2294-GPC-NLS

Case 3:13-cv-02294-GPC-NLS Document 51 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2