Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03243/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot
Defendant
Denise Davis Moorehead
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE DAVIS MOOREHEAD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HOME DEPOT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03243 CRB

ORDER DENYING CONTINUANCE

This is an employment discrimination action. Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment, scheduled to be heard on December 2, 2005. Two days before plaintiff’s

opposition was due, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney and sought a six-month

continuance of defendants’ motion. The Court vacated the December 2, 2005 hearing date

and scheduled a case management conference for December 2, 2005. At the conference,

plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court that he wanted to take a few depositions. The Court

accordingly ordered that plaintiff’s opposition be filed by December 30, 2005 and that oral

argument be heard on January 13, 2006.

Plaintiff never noticed any depositions; instead, two days before her opposition was

due, she again filed a request to continue the motion for summary judgment for six months. 

She bases her request on the same argument she made in support of her first request, namely,

her medical condition.

Case 3:04-cv-03243-CRB Document 93 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3243\orderrdenyingcontinuance.wpd 2

After considering the papers filed by the parties, and having reviewed defendants’

motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s request for a six-month continuance is DENIED. 

First, although plaintiff and her counsel have had defendants’ motion for summary

judgment since October, they have done nothing to prepare plaintiff’s opposition.

Second, plaintiff submitted a declaration dated December 22, 2005 in support of her

request for a continuance of the summary judgment motion. She attests under oath that she

cannot assist her attorney in preparing an opposition because she is not able to complete her

declaration in opposition. Declaration of Denise Davis Moorehead (“Moorehead Dec. 22,

2005 Decl.”) ¶ 3, dated December 22, 2005. Her statement, however, is contradicted by her

preparation of a declaration in support of her request for a continuance.

Third, it is apparent from plaintiff’s deposition testimony and her December 22, 2005

declaration that she does not have an objective good faith basis for her discrimination claims;

therefore, a continuance would be futile. Plaintiff admits that she and defendants agree on

the material facts and that their only dispute “lies in the result mandated by the law.” 

Moorehead Dec. 22 Decl. at ¶ 13. The material facts to which plaintiff agrees are that she

was terminated because she violated defendants’ safety policies. Moreover, at her deposition

she admitted that she has no objective basis for believing that her termination was motivated

by her race, gender or age. In such circumstances, it would be unjust to further delay the

resolution of plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

If plaintiff wishes to file an opposition which, among other things, sets forth “the

result mandated by the law” under the undisputed facts, the Court will consider such

submission provided it is filed on or before January 10, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03243-CRB Document 93 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3243\orderrdenyingcontinuance.wpd 3

Case 3:04-cv-03243-CRB Document 93 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 3