Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 70 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 4
1Mark
A.
Wasser
CA
SB#60160LAWOFFICESOF
MARK
A.
WASSER2400CapitolMall,Suite1100Sacramento,
CA
958143Phone:(916)444-6400Fax:(916)444-64054E-mail:mwasser!almarkwasser.com5Bernard
C.
Barmann,Sr.KERNCOUNTYCOUNSEL6MarkNations,ChiefDeputy1115TruxtonAvenue,FourthFloor7Bakersfield,
CA
93301Phone:(661)868-38008(661)868-3805E-maiLmnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10
11
12
AttornevsforDefendantsCountv
of
PeterBryan,irwinHarris,EugeneKercher,JenniferAbraham,ScottRagiand,ToniSmith
19
COUNTY
OF
KERN.
et
aI.,
20Defendants.
I
LocaiRule72-303]28U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1DateActionFiled:January6,2007TrialDate:August26,2008
DEFENDANTS'
OPPOSITION
TO
PLAINTIFF'SREQUEST
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
)CaseNo.:1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
))
)
))))))
)
~
)
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
EASTERN
DISTRICTOF
CALIFORNIA
i7Plaintiff,
23
13
14
1516
DAVIDF.,JADWIN,D.O.
21
22
18
I
\IS.
24Defendantssubmitthismemoranduminoppositionto
Plaintiffs
requestfor25reconsiderationbytheDistrictCourt
of
MagistrateJudge'srulingon
Plaintiffs
motiontostrike26fifthaffirmativedefense.
27
III
28
III
1
DEFENDANTS'OPPOSITIONTOPLAINTIFF'SREQUESTFORRECONSIDERATION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 70 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 4
I
I.
PLAINTIFFMISSTATESTHECASE
2Plaintiffsrequestforreconsiderationmisrepresentstherecord.Forexample,onpage32:2-10
of
PlaintifTsrequestforreconsideration,Plaintiffassertsthat"thepartiesnarrowedand4resolvedthe[fifthaffirmativedefense]
to
amutualunderstanding"thatitwasbasedonatheory5
of
"comparative
fault"
This
is
nottrue,Thepartiesdidnot"narrow"anyissuesandhad
no
6"understanding."Onehasonlytoreadwhatthepartieshavewritten
to
realizehowpolarized7theirpositionsare,
8
ii
,
Defendants'm(,m'Jra,ndumopposition
to
themotion
to
strike9clearlystatedDefendantsposition,DefendantsliberallyquotedtheallegationsfromPlaintilTs
10
complaintregarding"hostileworkenvironment".(Defendants'Memorandum
of
Pointsand
II
AuthoritiesOpposition
to
, , ~ , m U ' H
to
0U'''U,P,
3:3-Defendantsarguedshouldhavean
12
opportunity
to
rt"rn"pr
andintroduceevidenceown
hNlm!lnr
as
it
rehites
to
13
allegations
of
hostileworkenvironmentDefendantsspecificallyandexpresslydisclaimedany
14
theoryoFcontributorynegligence,"(Defendants'Memorandum
of
PointsandAuthoritiesin
15
Opposition
to
MotiontoStrike,
p,
4:22-23,)
16
Plaintifffiledareplymemoranduminsupport
of
hismotion
to
strikeafterDefendants
17
filedtheiroppositionmemorandum,Thus,PlaintiffknewexactlywhatDefendants'positionwas
18
andhenothadafullopportunity
to
reply,hedidreply,Hisassertionthathe"relied"onan
i
19
"understanding"20furthercomment,issquarelycontradicted
by
papersDefendantsfiled
is
notworthy
21
II.
THEPARTIESAREJUSTBEGINNINGDISCOVERY
22Plaintiffassertsthatthefifthaffirmativedefense"failstoprovidefairnotice"
of
the
23
defense,Notincludingthismemorandum,therehavebeenmorethan70pages
wTittento
date24aboutthefifthaffirmativedefense,
It
hasbeenanalyzedanddiscussed
ad
naseum.
Plaintiffhas
25
fullnotice
of
whatit
is
about
Verysimply,itputsPlaintiffonnoticethathisownbehavior
is
at26issue.
It
is
notcomplicated.
27
III
28
III
2
DEFENDANTS'OPPOSITION
TO
PLAINTIFF'SREQUESTFORRECONSlDERA
TION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 70 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 3 of 4
1
2
3
45
678910
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28PlaintiffisevidentlyeitherashamedorembarrassedabouthisbehaviorandwouldpreferthatDefendantsbeprecludedfromdevelopingevideneeaboutit.However,Defendantsareentitledtodevelopadefenseby,amongotherthings,showing
how
Plaintiffs
behaviorerodedtheworkenvironmentatKernMediealCenter.TheMagistrateJudgereasonablygavePlaintiffanopportunitytorenewhismotiontostrike
if
Defendantsareunabletodevelopevidencetosupportthefifthaffirmativedefense,(OrderdenyingMotiontoStrike,p.7:3-5.)DefendantshadmadePlaintiffthesameofferduringmeet-and-confer
f(n)Cf,SS
Thereisnolack
of
noticeregardingthemeaning
of
thefit1.haffirmativedefense.
m.
PLAINTIFF
MISREPRESENTS
THE
MAGISTRATE'SORDER
PlaintiffassertstheMagistrateJudgeraisedthedefensesuncleanhands,estoppel,anerstwhiledefensecanbelooselyas'hostileworkenvironmentcausation.'''PlaintiffmisstatestheMagistrate
Judge's
Order.Onpage6
of
herOrder,theMagistrateJudgediscussedtheconcepts
of
'uncleanhands"and"equitableestoppel"asexamples
of
theoriesthatsubjecta
plaintiffs
behaviortoscrutiny.NothingintheOrdercanbereadasinjectingnewdefensesintotheeaseand,tothecxtentPlaintiffsuggestsitdoes,Plaintiffismistaken.Plaintiffknowshisbehaviorisatissueanditwillaffectthe
relief
thatmayawarded.TheMagistrateJudgecorrectlyconcludedthattheDefendantshaveanopportunitytoexploreit.
IV.CONCLUSION
TheMagistrate
Judge's
Orderthoughtfullyandthoroughlyanalyzesthe
fit1.h
affirmativedefense.HerOrderdenied
Plaintiff
smotiontostrikewithoutprejudiee,therebygivingPlaintifftheopportunityto
renew
hismotion
ifthe
Defendantsareunabletodevelopfaetstosupportthefifthaffirmativedefense.Thatholdingisnotonlylegallysound,itisfair.
IIIIIIIII
3
DEFENDANTS'OPPOSITIONTOPLAINTIFF'SREQUESTFORRECONSIDERATION
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
