(PS) LaTourelle v. Barber et al, No. 2:2010cv02667 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/31/11: 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are adopted in part and rejected in part. 5 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. 6 Motion for Extension of time is denied. Defendant Wayne Virag is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this order is electronically filed. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PS) LaTourelle v. Barber et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUTH LaTOURELLE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-02667-MCE-CMK vs. ORDER TERRY BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff Ruth LaTourelle, proceeding pro se, seeks redress for alleged employment 18 discrimination and harassment by Defendants Terry Barber, Wayne Virag, County of Siskiyou, 19 and Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On January 21, 2011, the 21 Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties 22 and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Timely 23 objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304(f), this 2 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The Court adopts the findings and 3 recommendations except insofar as they are read to dismiss any cause of action against Terry 4 Barber that accrued on or after September 30, 2008. The findings and recommendations suggest 5 that the only timely cause of action under Claim Four relates to Terry Barber’s allegedly false 6 accusation that Plaintiff harassed co-workers. However, Plaintiff was allegedly terminated on 7 March 7, 2009. As a result, Plaintiff’s claim that she was terminated for engaging in protected 8 speech is timely. See National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2006) 9 (holding that discrete acts such as termination constitute separate actionable unlawful 10 employment practices for purposes of statutes of limitations). Having carefully reviewed the 11 entire file, and with the preceding exception, the court finds the findings and recommendations to 12 be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 21, 2011, are adopted in part and rejected in part as follows; 16 2. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance (ECF No. 6) is denied; 17 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is granted in part and denied 4. Plaintiff’s 1st, 2nd, and 5th Claims are dismissed in their entirety without 18 in part; 19 20 leave to amend; 21 5. Plaintiff’s 4th Claim is dismissed without leave to amend except plaintiff’s 22 claim against Defendant Barber relating to allegedly retaliatory conduct occurring between 23 September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2010; 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 6. Plaintiff’s 6th and 7th Claims are dismissed with leave to amend; 2 7. Defendant Virag is dismissed with prejudice; and 3 8. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date 4 this order is electronically filed. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2011 7 8 9 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.