Whitsitt v. Hedy Holmes Staffing Services

Full title: WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Plaintiff, v. HEDY HOLMES STAFFING SERVICES, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC

Date published: Sep 21, 2015

Fact:

  • On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff William J. Whitsitt filed a complaint against multiple defendants for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), civil conspiracy, employment retaliation/blacklisting, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • The court previously issued findings and recommendations on June 14, 2013, recommending dismissal of the action for failure to timely return documents for service on defendants. These recommendations were adopted by the district court on August 6, 2013.
  • Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment on February 7, 2014, which was granted by the district court on March 28, 2014.
  • On June 20, 2014, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on December 5, 2014, dismissing some claims with prejudice and others with leave to amend.
  • Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on March 10, 2015, asserting the same claims against the remaining defendants.
  • The County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on March 27, 2015.
  • Various continuances and extensions were granted, leading to a hearing on July 29, 2015.

Issue:

Whether the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against WorkNet for lack of federal jurisdiction, and whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his ADEA claim.

CONCLUSION:

In light of the foregoing, THE COURT HERBY RECOMMENDS that the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 43, be GRANTED without leave to amend as to plaintiff’s ADEA claim and without prejudice as to his state law claims, and that the action be DISMISSED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight + twenty =