Singh et al v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., No. 2:2005cv00521 - Document 197 (E.D. Cal. 2007)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England Jr. on 6/21/07 ORDERING Plaintiffs' Motions for Reconsideration 169, 171 and 173 GRANTED. The Court's MSJ Order Granting Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs claim of Hostile Work Environment 167 is hereby VACATED. The Court's MSJ Order in all other respects remains fully in force. Case Reopened. (Krueger, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Singh et al v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. Doc. 197 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASVEER SINGH; JESUS MIER; and TOMMIE PRUITT, 12 2:05-CV-0521-MCE-DAD Plaintiffs, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 15 16 17 18 19 YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. DBA YELLOW FREIGHT; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD of TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION #439, DANIEL DRAKE, ROGER PRICE, FRANK VELLA and DOES 1 - 20, Defendants. ----oo0oo---- 20 21 In bringing the present action, Plaintiffs Jasveer Singh 22 (“Singh”), Jesus Mier (“Mier”) and Tommie Pruitt (“Pruitt”) 23 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant Yellow 24 Transportation, Inc. (“Yellow”) subjected them to discrimination, 25 harassment, and retaliation in violation of their rights under 42 26 U.S.C. § 1981 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act 27 (“FEHA”), California Government Code §§ 12900-12996. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD 1 Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 9 On May 5, 2005, Yellow moved for summary judgment.1 The 2 Court concluded in a Memorandum and Order dated October 11, 2006, 3 (“MSJ Order”) that summary judgment in favor of Yellow was 4 appropriate. 5 the case was thereafter closed. 6 filed separate but virtually identical Motions for 7 Reconsideration of the Court’s previous Order granting summary 8 judgment.2 9 collectively below. 10 The Court entered judgment in favor of Yellow and On October 23, 2006, Plaintiffs Those Motions for Reconsideration shall be considered For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ Motions are granted. 11 BACKGROUND 12 13 14 The Court has already set forth a detailed factual 15 background for this action in its Order dated October 11, 2006, 16 which is incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced 17 herein. 18 MSJ Order 2-5, October 11, 2006. As noted in this Court’s MSJ Order, Plaintiffs failed to 19 comply with the Eastern District’s Local Rules regarding the 20 submission of statements filed by a party opponent. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Because there are three Plaintiffs in this matter with very similar but independent claims, Yellow filed three separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Given the striking similarity of the facts giving rise to all three Plaintiffs’ claims and the similarity of the legal arguments presented in support of their dismissal, the Court addressed all three Motions for Summary Judgment collectively in its MSJ Order. For ease and clarity, those three Motions for Summary Judgment shall be referenced herein as the “MSJ Motions.” 2 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 2 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD 1 Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 9 Rather, Plaintiffs submitted a single 29 page Opposition to 2 Yellow’s MSJ Motions and merely incorporated by reference a 197 3 page Statement of Undisputed Facts. 4 clearly in violation of this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order in 5 that it exceeded the page limit set forth therein. 6 Plaintiffs’ Statement of Facts was not only unduly expansive in 7 violation of Local Rule 56-260(b), it was also redundant in 8 merely duplicating largely objectionable declarations and witness 9 statements. Plaintiffs’ Opposition was In addition, Nonetheless, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ papers 10 and concluded in its October 11, 2006, Order that Summary 11 Judgment in favor of Defendants was appropriate. 12 for Reconsideration followed. These Motions 13 STANDARD 14 15 16 A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless 17 extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was 18 clearly erroneous. 19 486 U.S. 800, 816, 108 S. Ct. 2166, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1988). 20 This principle is generally embodied in the law of the case 21 doctrine. 22 once resolved in ongoing litigation. 23 of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 Nonetheless, under certain limited circumstances, the court has 25 discretion to reconsider its prior decisions. 26 Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., That doctrine counsels against reopening questions Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe A motion for reconsideration is treated as a Rule 59(e) 27 motion if filed within ten days of entry of judgment, but as a 28 Rule 60(b) motion if filed more than ten days after judgment. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 9 1 See Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 2 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 reconsideration of a final judgement and was filed more than ten 4 days after the entry of judgment, the Court will treat it as a 5 Rule 60(b) motion. 6 Since this motion is seeking Rule 60(b) enumerates the grounds upon which a motion for 7 relief from an order or judgment may be made. It specifies that: 8 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s 15 order, or belief that the court is wrong in its decision, are not 16 grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). 17 ANALYSIS 18 19 20 Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are 21 addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Casey 22 v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004) 23 (internal citations omitted). 24 should reverse its earlier ruling on the ground that it “ignores 25 the reasonable inference, from all the evidence that Yellow 26 should have known” of the racial discrimination and harassment. 27 See generally Plf.s’ Mem. of Pts. and Auth. in Support of the 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs here allege the Court 4 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD 1 Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 9 In addition, Plaintiffs argue that the MSJ Order should be 2 reversed because the Court did not “look past Yellow’s paper 3 reiteration of policy” which would have permitted the Court to 4 see that Yellow did not, in fact, take sufficient remedial 5 measures to stem the discrimination and harassment. 6 Id. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 7 does not challenge the Court’s MSJ Order with respect to Section 8 I (Racial Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981). 9 with respect to Section III (Retaliation), Plaintiffs only curtly In addition, 10 mention in footnote 3 of their brief that a “campaign of 11 harassment by co-workers, if known and not corrected...[may 12 support] a retaliation claim.” 13 authority for this newly presented proposition as well as mis- 14 cite the case itself. 15 improperly cited authority nor shall it construe this footnote as 16 a challenge to the Court’s summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ 17 retaliation claim. 18 Reconsideration shall be deemed as challenging only the Court’s 19 ruling on Plaintiffs’ Hostile Work Environment claim. 20 Plaintiffs cite non-binding The Court shall not consider this Consequently, the present Motion for As noted above, Plaintiffs argue that the Court ignored the 21 “reasonable inference” that Defendant Yellow should have known of 22 the racial harassment well in advance of September 2003, the date 23 the Court concluded Defendant, in fact, had knowledge. 24 Plaintiffs argue the remedial action taken by Defendant Yellow to 25 eradicate the harassment was inadequate, a position in direct 26 conflict with the Court’s holding. 27 28 Further, Before reaching the merits of the foregoing arguments, the Court notes that Plaintiffs submitted in excess of 1600 pages in 5 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 9 1 support of their opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 2 Judgment. 3 Def.’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication by 4 Jasveer Singh, Jesus Mier, Tommy Pruitt, Docket No. 97 (125 5 pages) (“Exhibits”); Exhibits Vol. I (11-20), Docket No. 98 (31 6 pages); Exhibits Vol. I (21-30), Docket No. 99 (40 pages); 7 Exhibits Vol. I (31-38), Docket No. 100 (19 pages); Exhibits Vol. 8 II (39-48), Docket No. 101 (30 pages); Exhibits Vol. II (49-58), 9 Docket No. 102 (29 pages); Exhibits Vol. II (59-68), Docket No. Included were Exhibits Vol. I (1-10) to Plf.s’ Opp. to 10 103 (50 pages); Exhibits Vol. II (69-71), Docket No. 104 (94 11 pages); Exhibits Vol. III (72-76), Docket No. 105 (248 pages); 12 Exhibits Vol. III (77), Docket No. 106 (97 pages); Exhibits Vol. 13 III (78-84), Docket No. 107 (335 pages); Stmt. of Facts in 14 Support of Plf.s’ Opp. to Def.’s Motion for Summary 15 Judgment/Summary Adjudication by Jasveer Singh, Jesus Mier, Tommy 16 Pruitt, Docket No. 108 (197 pages); Mem. of Pts. and Auth. in 17 Opp. to Def.’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication 18 by Jasveer Singh, Jesus Mier, Tommy Pruitt, Docket No. 111 (29 19 pages); Resp. to Def.’s Separate Stmt. of Undis. Facts in Support 20 of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Tommy Pruitt, 21 Docket No. 114 (90 pages); Resp. to Def.’s Separate Stmt. of 22 Undis. Facts in Support of Motion for Summary 23 Judgment/Adjudication by Jasveer Singh, Docket No. 115 (78 24 pages); and Resp. to Def.’s Separate Stmt. of Undis. Facts in 25 Support of Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication by Jasveer 26 Singh, Docket No. 115 (114 pages). 27 In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiffs filed a declaration as 28 well as evidentiary objections and a request for permission to 6 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD 1 Document 197 submit additional briefing. Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 9 See Docket No.s 144, 145, 146, 152. 2 Despite this mass of documentation, Plaintiffs’ 29 page 3 Opposition brief is notable in that it includes but a single 4 citation to the record and that citation speaks only to alleged 5 retaliation suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of lodging 6 complaints. 7 for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication by Jasveer Singh, Jesus 8 Mier, Tommy Pruitt, Docket No. 111, Page 26. 9 entirely to cite the Court to any issues of material fact See Mem. of Pts. and Auth. in Opp. to Def.’s Motion Plaintiffs failed 10 regarding Defendant’s notice of the harassment or inadequate 11 remedial measures being undertaken to halt the harassment. 12 When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court 13 does not have an obligation to “scour the record in search of a 14 genuine issue of triable fact.” 15 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). 16 “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the 17 briefs.” 18 Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, As another court has famously stated, U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991). Despite these glaring issues with Plaintiffs’ Opposition, 19 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration does what their Opposition 20 did not; namely point to the relevant issues of material fact. 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration directs the Court to 22 issues of fact contained in the record regarding Defendant’s 23 knowledge of the alleged harassment as well as the adequacy of 24 Defendant’s response to the alleged harassment. 25 Specifically, Plaintiff Mier contends Defendants had been on 26 notice of the harassment because “Drake called [Mier] a “wetback” 27 and a “fucking wetback” in a loud voice, in open spaces, in front 28 of supervisors.” Plf.s’ Stmt. Undisp. Fact, ¶ 121 (emphasis 7 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 9 1 added). 2 often in front of an SOM “Hot Rod” or Rodney, and Manager Dave 3 Lujan. 4 [Lujan’s] nose, 10 feet, 12 feet, 20 feet [away].” 5 Further, Singh explained that the name-calling occurred Id. at ¶ 288. Singh contended “[i]t happened right under Id. Given the existence of these facts, it now appears there is 6 an issue of material fact regarding Defendant’s notice of the 7 harassment. 8 Defendants’ notice should not have been accorded. 9 Accordingly, summary judgment on the issue of With respect to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant did not 10 take sufficient remedial measures to defeat summary judgment, 11 again Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration does what their 12 Opposition did not. 13 Reconsideration cites facts in support of their position that 14 Defendant’s response was insufficient. 15 Court’s conclusion that Defendant engaged in prompt measures 16 calculated to stem the harassment by pointing to facts arguably 17 indicating otherwise. 18 Human Resources Manager responsible for the investigation, Don 19 Pochowski, did not take notes when he interviewed dock workers 20 apparently evidencing that his investigation was a mere pretense. 21 Id. at ¶ 515. 22 Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Plaintiffs rebut the For example, Plaintiffs contend that the Further, Plaintiffs contend Pochowski did not talk to any 23 Union representatives about whether or not they had received 24 complaints from dockworkers or about what the Union might be able 25 to do in terms of obtaining complaints about incidents of alleged 26 harassment. 27 sufficient to warrant relief from the Court’s Order granting 28 summary judgment on the issue of remedial measures calculated to Id. at ¶ 524. These facts, now uncovered, are 8 Case 2:05-cv-00521-MCE-DAD 1 Document 197 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 9 terminate the harassment. 2 CONCLUSION 3 4 For the reasons set forth fully above, Plaintiffs Motion for 5 Reconsideration is GRANTED. 6 Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim of Hostile Work Environment 7 is hereby vacated. 8 remains fully in force. 9 The Court’s MSJ Order granting The Court’s MSJ Order in all other respects All parties are cautioned that pleadings which do not in the 10 future comply with the letter as well as the spirit of the 11 Court’s rules will be summarily rejected and returned to the 12 parties. The court may impose additional sanctions on the 13 offending party(ies) as the Court deems appropriate.\ 14 Dated: June 21, 2007 15 16 17 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
