Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-04637/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-04637-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRYSTAL A. POOLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C-10-4637 JCS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF

MOTION FOR CIVIL SUIT [Docket No. 2]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is a “Motion for Civil Suit” filed by the Plaintiff who is proceeding in the

above-captioned matter in pro per. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the Plaintiff’s

Motion suitable for determination without oral argument. Having considered the papers submitted

and for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on October 14, 2010. See Docket No. 1 In the

original Complaint Plaintiff states claims alleging discrimination, retaliation and emotional distress

under Title VII.

Filed concurrently with the original Complaint was a Notice of Motion for Civil Suit

(“Motion”). See Docket No. 2. The Motion is a one page document that states the following: 

To Corporate Officers of Catholic Healthcare West/St. Francis Memorial Hospital; San

Francisco, California. A Motion for Civil Suit has been filed in the United States District

Court, Northern California, for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964.

Motion at 1. Attached to the Motion is a Proposed Order to Proceed with Civil Action (“Proposed

Case 3:10-cv-04637-JCS Document 18 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Order”). In the Proposed Order, the Plaintiff makes several requests: 

All Declarations be admissible to Trial as evidence and co-workers/witnesses for plaintiff in

Trial[...]that all exhibits, including A through U and other applicable documents that may be

requested by plaintiff from defendants, be admissible for ADR and/or Trial[...]that protected

information under the HIPPA Law be admissible for trial, so long as client’s identity if

concealed as evidence for Trial. This information would be viewable for Judge or Jury, only as

evidence[... and] that Exhibits be filed as an Addendum to plaintiff’s motion, which if added to

motion, would exceed twenty-five(25) pages. 

Proposed Order at 1-2. The Defendant has filed no opposition.

Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint and Proposed Order, the parties entered into three

stipulations. First, on November 15, 2010 the parties agreed to an extension of time for Defendant

to respond to the Complaint. See Docket No. 10. The Court granted the agreed-upon extension the

following day. See Docket No. 11. Second, on November 23, 2010 the parties agreed to allow

Plaintiff an extension of time until December 30, 2010 to file a First Amended Complaint. See

Docket No. 12. The parties agreed that in the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff will number

paragraphs, remove unnecessary and irrelevant allegations, and will incorporate citations to cases

and statutes. See Docket No. 13 (Stipulation and Order Allowing Plaintiff Leave to File an

Amended Complaint ¶ 5). The Court granted the extension the following day. See Docket No. 13. 

Third, on December 10, 2010, the parties agreed by stipulation to sealing certain portions of the

Compliant that contain personal information. See Docket No. 14. 

On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the FAC,

Plaintiff presents three claims for relief: 1) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 2)

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 3) violation of California Government Code § 12940. 

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the Motion and attached Proposed Order and finds that Plaintiff’s

requests in her motion (filed concurrently with her original Complaint) concern the admissibility at

trial of certain documents. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests are premature. Although Plaintiff has

filed her First Amended Complaint, no responsive pleading from Defendant has yet been submitted

to the Court. It is unnecessary to decide a motion relating to admissibility of evidence at trial when

the case has progressed no further than the initial pleadings. The Court notes that the Plaintiff may

renew her Motion again at the appropriate time. In denying the Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court does

Case 3:10-cv-04637-JCS Document 18 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 3
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

not reach any determination regarding the substantive merits of Plaintiff’s claims or the ultimate

admissibility of any of the documents referenced in Plaintiff’s Motion and Proposed Order.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2011

______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-04637-JCS Document 18 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 3