Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03026/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03026-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lal Dev
Plaintiff
Patrick R. Donahoe
Defendant

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAL DEV, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-3026-JAM-EFB-PS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY 

 On December 18, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 27. 

Defendant noticed the hearing for January 15, 2014. Id. On December 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a 

motion to stay this action. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff contends that a stay is appropriate because he 

currently has another case pending that involves common questions of law and facts. Id. at 1-2. 

 On November 7, 2011, plaintiff initiated an action against Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster 

General of the United States Postal Service, the same defendant in this action. Dev v. Donahoe, 

2:11-cv-2950-JAM-EFB (“Dev 1”), ECF No. 1. In that action, Dev alleged racial discrimination 

based on six events: (1) Dev was denied what is referred to as the “high option” on Rural Route 8; 

(2) Dev’s request to invalidate the 2010 National Count evaluation of Rural Route 8 was denied; 

(3) the Postmaster did not give Dev additional territory for his route after the Postmaster 

consolidated Rural Routes 18 and 19 and distributed territory from those routes to various other 

Case 2:12-cv-03026-JAM-EFB Document 30 Filed 01/02/14 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 

2

routes; (4) Dev did not timely receive new case labels and rearrangement of his Delivery Point 

Sequence in the order he wanted after he began carrying Rural Route 8; (5) the Postmaster 

humiliated Dev on the work floor; and (6) Dev was denied a detail to a temporary supervisor 

position referred to as a “204b position.” See Dev 1, ECF No. 131. On February 26, 2013, 

defendant moved for summary judgment. Dev 1, ECF No. 55. On October 16, 2013, the 

undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment be granted. Dev 1, ECF No. 131. The findings and recommendations are 

currently pending. 

 In the instant action, plaintiff claims that he was subject to discrimination on account of 

his race when the classification of his rural postal route was adjusted, reducing the number of 

hours he worked each week. See generally ECF No. 1. While both cases involve race-based 

discrimination claims, they challenge separate employment actions and are factually distinct. 

Plaintiff has provided no authority to support a stay under these circumstances and has not 

demonstrated that a stay is warranted. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 29, is 

denied. 

Dated: January 2, 2014. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-03026-JAM-EFB Document 30 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2