Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02076/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02076-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vinotheque Wine Cellars
Defendant
Mark Tanner
Defendant
William J. Whitsitt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2076 FCD GGH PS

vs.

VINOTHEQUE WINE CELLARS, ORDER

MARK TANNER, 

Defendants.

 /

Previously pending on this court’s August 2, 2007 law and motion calendar was

defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted), and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), defendants’ motion to strike

plaintiff’s “Memorandum of Points and Authorities” filed September 19, 2006.

Counsel Ernest Malaspina appeared at the hearing on behalf of defendants. 

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, did not appear (as he so informed this court’s courtroom clerk by

telephone the preceding afternoon), although he timely filed an opposition. Plaintiff’s notice of

nonattendance was patently inadequate. Failure to appear at a scheduled hearing may be deemed

withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in the imposition of sanctions. E. D. Cal.

L. R. 78-230(j). Moreover, failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

Case 2:06-cv-02076-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

imposition . . . of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power

of the Court.” Pro se litigants are required to comply with the Local and Federal Rules. E. D.

Cal. L. R. 11-110, 83-183.

It nonetheless remains the policy of federal courts to give pro se litigants every

benefit of the doubt. See, e.g., Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027, n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985)

(“[W]e have an obligation where the petitioner is pro se . . . to construe the pleadings liberally

and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt”). Plaintiff shall therefore be accorded one

more opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss in order to address the significant

overriding issue whether plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The complaint alleges that in March 2006 plaintiff, then 51 years of age, was

interviewed but not hired for either of two cabinet maker positions for which defendant

Vinotheque Wine Cellars and its hiring manager, defendant Mark Tanner, were recruiting. The

complaint alleges discrimination in hiring, and retaliation, in violation of the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and a pendant state law claim of

intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

To pursue a private ADEA claim in federal court, a plaintiff must comply with the

administrative exhaustion requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626. As in Title VII cases, “substantial

compliance with the exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional pre-requisite. . . [and] [t]he

jurisdictional scope of the plaintiff’s court action depends on the scope of the EEOC charge and

investigation.” Leong. v. Potter, 347 F. 3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). “Exhaustion of

administrative remedies is a condition precedent to the filing of an action under the ADEA in

federal court.” Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir.2005). In California, a

“deferral” state (29 U.S.C. § 633(b)), these exhaustion requirements include the filing of an age

discrimination charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

(“DFEH”) within 300 days of the alleged unlawful practice. See 28 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2); 29

C.F.R. 1626.7. Filing with DFEH is deemed to be a filing with the EEOC. McConnell v.

Case 2:06-cv-02076-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

General Telephone Co. of California, 814 F.2d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1987) ; see also 29 C.F.R. §

1626.10(c) (“charges received by one agency . . . shall be deemed received by the other agency

for purposes of § 1626.7”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff file, within ten (10) court

days after the filing date of this order, a concise brief and pertinent exhibits demonstrating

exhaustion of his administrative remedies as to both of his ADEA claims. No extensions will be

granted. The court’s caseload is substantial and judicial resources limited, and the court should

not be tasked with resolving a case in which the plaintiff intentionally and casually breaches

court rules. Failure of plaintiff to respond to this order shall result in a recommendation this

action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Defendants may, within ten (10) court days after the filing date of plaintiff’s brief,

file a response addressing plaintiff’s exhaustion of his administrative remedies. 

The court will thereafter submit defendants’ motions for decision on the papers or

schedule oral argument. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6:Whitsitt2076.ord10

Case 2:06-cv-02076-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 3