Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 291 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 1 of 11
1Mark
A.
Wasser
CA
SB#060160LAWOFFICES
OFMARK
A.
WASSER2400CapitolMall,Suite2640Sacramento,
CA
958143Phone:(916)444-6400Fax:(916)444-64054E-mail:mwasserlalmarkwasser.com5BernardC.Barmann,Sr.CASB#060508KERNCOUNTY
COUNSEL
6MarkNations,
Chief
DeputyCASB#1018381115TruxtuuAvenue,FourthFloor7Bakersfield,
CA
93301Phone:(661)868-38008Fax:(661)868-3805E-mail:mnations@co.kern.ca.us9AttorneysforDefendantsCounty
of
Kern,
10
PeterBryan,andIrwinHarris
11
12
13
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTEASTERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
14
15
DAVIDF.JADWIN,D.O.
16Plaintiff,17vs.
18
COUNTYOFKERN,
etai.,CaseNo.:1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINREPLYTOPLAINTIIF'SOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTS'MOTION
FOR
SUMMARYJUDGMENT
19
Defendants.20
21
22
23
24
25
262728Date:January
12,2009
Time:10:00a.m.Place:U.S.DistrictCourt,Courtroom32500TulareStreet,Fresno,
CA
DateActionFiled:January6,2007TrialDate:March24,2009
-------------
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORlTIES
IN
REPLYTOPLAINTIFF'SOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 291 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 2 of 11
1Defendantssubmitthismemorandum
of
pointsandauthorities
in
reply
to
Plaintiffs2oppositiontoDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgment.
3
A.
Spoliation
4Raising
in
hisoppositionanissuehedidnotraise
in
hismovingpapers,Plaintiffalleges5threeindividualsemployedbytheCountydestroyedevidence
in
thiscase.This
is
specious.6Withregard
to
DavidCulberson,KMC'sinterimChiefExecutiveOfficer,thedeposition7testimonyPlaintiffcites("PMF242"),whenread
in
itsentirety,showsthenotes
Mr.
Culberson8destroyedwereinconsequentialremindersabouttopics
to
bediscussedatmeetings.(Culberson9Depo.,8/21/08,pgs.45:17-46:11).Mr.Culbersontestifieditwashisusualpractice
to
discard
10
notes
of
thistype.There
is
noindicationhisnoteshadanythingto
do
withthiscase.(Culberson
11
Depo.,8/21/08,pg.42:8-17;pgs.45:10-46:
11.
Seealso,pg.47:10-51:6).Furthermore,tothe
12
extentMr.Culbersonattendedmeetingswhereminuteswerekept,theminuteswouldbethebest
13
evidence
of
whattranspiredatthemeetingsandtheminuteshaveallbeenproduced.
14
SupervisorBarbaraPatrickdoesnotrecallwhethershetooknotesattheJointConference
15
CommitteemeetingwherethevotewastakentoremovePlaintiffasChair.(PSUF
~ 2 3 4 ,
Patrick
16
Depo.,8/19/08,pgs.70:8-73:7).Shedescribedanynotesshemighthavewrittenonhercopies
17
of
theagendas
as
"doodles."
Id.
Again,theminuteswouldbethebestevidence
of
topics
18
discussedatthemeetingsandalltheminuteshavebeenproduced.
19
Finally,Dr.Raglandtestifiedthathisstandardandlong-standingpractice
isto
delete
e-
20mailsafter
he
readsthem.TheharddiskonthecomputerthathadbeenassignedtoPlaintiffwas
21
bothsearchedandproducedandthee-mailexchangePlaintiffinquiredaboutwasnoton22Plaintiffscomputer,either.Thus,it
is
likelythee-mailexchangePlaintiffinquiredabout
23
occurredbeforePlaintiffaskedtheDefendants
to
preservee-mails.Further,Plaintiffclearlyhad24controlovertheinformation
in
questionbecausehediscusseditduringaMedicalExecutive
25
Committeemeeting.(RaglandDepo.,8/22/08,pgs.90:10-91:17)26
B.
MedicalLeave
27
Plaintiffarguesthat
Bachelder
v.
AmericaWestAirlines,Inc.,
(9
th
Cir.2001)259F.3d
28
1112
is
controllingandestablishesthatDefendantsinterferedwithhisrighttomedicalleaveand
-1-
DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINREPLYTOPLAINTIFF'SOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT
 
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 291 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 3 of 11
Iretaliatedagainsthimfortakingmedicalleave.
Bachelder
actuallysupportstheDefendants.2In
Bachelder,
thecourtheldtheplaintiff/employee'sabsenceswereprotectedbyFMLA3becausetheyoccurredduringher
12
workweeks
of
protectedleave.
Id.
at1132.The4defendant/employerhadnotspecifiedwhich
of
thefour"leaveyear"calculations,describedin5
29
C.F.R.§825.200,itwoulduse
to
calculateFMLAleave.
Id.
at1129.Consequently,thecourt6calculatedtheplaintiff/employee'sleaveunderthemethodthatwasmostadvantageoustoher.
7Id.
Thiswasthe"calendaryear"methodand,underthatmethod,theabsencesforwhichthe8plaintiffhadbeenterminatedoccurredwithintheprotected12-weekperiod.9Here,thefactsaredifferent.TheCountyhaddesignateda"rollingleaveyear"forthe
10
purpose
of
calculatingFMLAleave.(BatesNos.0018974-0018976;
29
C.F.R.§825.200(b)).
II
Plaintiffexhaustedhis
12
weeksleavebyJune14,2006(DSUF
~ ~ 3 0 ,
32,and38)butwasnot
12
removed
as
ChairuntilJuly
10,
after
he
refusedtheCOlmty'sinvitation
to
returntowork.
13
(DSUF
~ ~ 1 9 ,
23,and33).Therelevantlanguagefrom
Bachelder
is
thecourt'scommentthat"it
14
should
be
obvious"thatFMLAoffers
no
protectionforabsencesthatexceedthoseauthorizedby
15
thestatute.
Bachelder,
259
FJd
at1125.Thus,itoffersnoprotectionforPlaintiff.
16
c.
DueProcess
17
PlaintifferroneouslyassertsDefendantshave"expresslyrecognized"theconstitutional
18
right
of
chairstonotbedemotedwithoutdueprocess.(Pltf.'sOpp.toDefts.'Motionfor
19
SummaryJudgment,pg.14,
~ 4 ) .
In"support",hereliesonminutes
of
theJointConference20Committeemeeting
of
September
10,
2007duringwhichsomeonesaid,withreference
to
Dr.
21
LeonardPerez,"Dr.Perezisentitled
to
adueprocesshearing."(PSUF
~ 2 5 7 ) .
Thatwastrue.22However,Dr.LeonardPerez'semploymentwasterminatedforcause.
(Id.;
JCCMeeting
23
Minutes
of
9/1
0/07atAgendaItem6onBates0009221).Plaintiffwouldalsohavebeenentitled24
to
ahearing
ifhe
hadbeenterminated.(See,Plaintiffsemploymentagreement,DSUF'[6,
25
SectionIV,
~ 3 ,
pg.14).26But,Plaintiffwasnotterminated.
He
wassimplyremovedasdepartmentchair.27Plaintiffsemploymentwassubject
to
theKMCmedicalstaffbylaws(DSUF
~ ~ 4
and6b)andthe28Bylawsprovidethatchairscanberemovedwithoutcauseonrecommendation
of
theChief
·2·DEFENDANTS'MEMORANDUM
OF
POINTSANDAUTHORITIES
IN
REPLYTOPLAINTIFF'SOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more