158 DFJ Mx File TSC - Opposition

Document Sample
158 DFJ Mx File TSC - Opposition Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 158

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 6) 444-6400 444-6405

2 13

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-1-

July Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. Dist. Ct., Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18 t Street, Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 2, 2008

Defendants respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a third supplemental complaint.

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 158

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 2 of 4

1

A.
conl1pl:3.mt
pleadl~r IS

The Pleading Standard.

2

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 8") provides for "notice pleading".
reqUln~d IS reqUln~d

3

to

rwn,uu,p nrn'V1f''''

statement

emrue:a

:'JL+-page. t2lct-mt,ens:ive conl1pl:nnt IS

c __

~..!

Ioalled

denlled out denlied

1
21 22 complaint to begin with, need to be repeated thrice, eludes the Defendants.

a

Not content with repeating them three times, for good measure, Plaintiff throws in a

23
24

fourth repetition of paragraph 29. See paragraph 144. Thoughtful repetition can be an effective
tool of advocacy. However, this is a pleading and we ought to observe some rules. (Other paragraphs in the complaint are already repeated multiple times but they, thankfully, are not before us.) These three, actually ten, paragraphs do not belong in the complaint.

25
26 27

28
-2DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 158

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 3 of 4

1

c.

Paragraph 148.

2 3 4

Paragraph 148 presents a slightly different issue. Paragraph 148 adds an allegation that

deJmed on"norfnr,it" "plrof~~ssional Plclinjjtl Plamtltt was derlled an 0P1PortUIlity to earn "P!'ot~~ssjlonal
aPl)ears to state a new apt)ears

par2lgral)h 1 pantgralph as reclUe:stirlg new reqlue:stirlg

5

nresents pf()bll~m. pres:ents a problern.

preparing to dlsclo:se

reCluest to

a
Hl~,lU'JHjl""

a Po:ssilbie

are
21

IS

no reason

been proposed earlier. At this point, there is no way to avoid prejudice to the Defendants. Either we stay on schedule and Defendants have no meaningful opportunity to discover facts about this new claim or we revise the scheduling order, extend discovery and continue the trial and, thereby, postpone the Defendants' ability to ultimately dispose of these claims.

22

23
24 25 26
27

D.

Paragraphs 155 and 159.

Paragraphs 155 and 159 are useless additions to the complaint. The evidentiary facts contained in these two paragraphs add nothing to any claims already alleged.

28 -3DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 158

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 4 of 4

1
2
3

E.
par2lgralJh 1 paralgralJh

Paragraph 229.

Finally, paragraph 229 raises issues analogous to those raised by the proposed addition alleges delamatlc)ll c1elamatlcm a detam:atlcm delam.atlcm
a~~ainst a~~amst

sub!stalltial am'endment to

reasons, De:lerldants reQ1Uest Uetendarlt5 n~qllest cause

21

Dated: June 25, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

22 23 By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

24
25

26
27 28
-4DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.