88 Cal.App.4th 52, 64. Plaintiff has been unable to present admissible evidence that this is the case. The injury to plaintiff of the denial of a promotion, does not in itself constitute a continuing violation. Plaintiff's contention that Murray's 1996 project assessment of plaintiff's work was not created until May 1998 when plaintiff first saw it, is unsupported by any admissible evidence, and plaintiff's speculation alone, is insufficient to crate a conflict in the evidence disputing Murray's testimony that he prepared it and gave it to his supervisor shortly after plaintiff's project ended in 1996, or Billington's testimony that he relied upon the report in deciding to deny plaintiff's request to transfer. The Court finds this action barred by the statute of limitations, and thus need not address moving party's other contentions.
Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order is required, the tentative ruling being sufficient notice. Defendant's were discharged in bankruptcy in September 1998. The automatic stay has no effect on, or relevance to, this action which was filed in November 2000. The issue is whether the debt which is the subject of this action was discharged in bankruptcy.