Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EVANS v. SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION

November 23, 2005.

ELLIS EVANS, Plaintiff,
v.
SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: IRMA GONZALEZ, District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
Presently before the Court is San Diego Transit Corporation's ("defendant") motion for summary judgement. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

  A. Factual Background

  Plaintiff was employed by SDTC as a part-time bus driver, subject to the collective bargaining agreement between SDTC and the San Diego Bus Driver's Union ("the union"). (SAC at ¶ 1.) In addition to providing bus service within the City of San Diego, SDTC also operated the Chula Vista Transit ("CVT") bus fleet for the City of Chula Vista. (Id. at ¶ 1.) In January 2002, SDTC met with union members to discuss an arrangement in which part-time SDTC drivers would provide service to understaffed CVT routes for a limited time. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Despite negotiations, apparently no agreement was reached. (Id.)

  On February 6, 2002, SDTC recruited plaintiff to cover shifts for CVT. (Compl. Ex. A at 12.)*fn1 The SDTC informed plaintiff that he would not receive the experience-based wage progression available under the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") governing City of San Diego bus routes. (SAC, at ¶¶ 5-8.) The pay was to be $8.85 per hour, commensurate with SDTC starting pay rates. (Compl. Ex. A at 8.)

  Plaintiff worked for CVT from approximately February 16, 2002 to May 23, 2002. (Compl. Ex. A at 11-18.) At some point thereafter, plaintiff expressed concern that his CVT wage violated the CBA. (See Compl. Ex. A at 10.) On June 26, 2002, in accordance with the terms of the CBA, the union filed a formal written grievance on behalf of plaintiff with the manager of human resources at SDTC. (Id.) SDTC denied plaintiff's grievance in a letter dated August 13, 2002. (Id. at 8.)

  B. Procedural Background

  On August 23, 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint with the small claims division of the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that SDTC violated the terms of the CBA when it refused to pay plaintiff SDTC-level wages for work performed on the CVT routes. (Compl. Ex. A at 1.) SDTC subsequently removed the case to the District Court, initiating civil case number 02-1851-L (JFS). On August 1, 2003, the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. (See 02-CV-1851 Doc. No. 5.)

  On February 6, 2004, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a new complaint, initiating civil case number 04-0241-IEG (RBB). Plaintiff again alleged that SDTC violated the CBA when it refused to pay plaintiff the higher SDTC wage for his routes with the CVT. (Compl. at ¶¶ 1-5.) Plaintiff's complaint also contained allegations that SDTC discriminated against part-time workers in violation of the CBA and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-5.) On March 1, 2004, SDTC filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's new complaint.

  On April 20, 2004, the Court granted SDTC's motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were time-barred, that plaintiff failed to exhaust his internal remedies as required by the CBA, and that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a discrimination claim. The Court, however, granted plaintiff leave to amend, and on June 1, 2004, plaintiff filed a first-amended complaint ("FAC").

  On June 14, 2004, SDTC filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, arguing that plaintiff's wage discrepancy claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that plaintiff failed to remedy the deficiencies in his initial complaint with regard to his racial discrimination claim. On July 8, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition, which the Court accepted. SDTC filed its reply on July 19, 2004. On July 30, 2004, the Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's claims relating to the collective bargaining agreement. The Court also dismissed plaintiff's section 1981 claim, but granted plaintiff leave to amend.

  On August 25, 2004, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Thereafter, on September 9, 2004, SDTC filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. SDTC argues that plaintiff's discrimination claim is merely a restatement of his collective bargaining claims, which the Court previously dismissed with prejudice in its July 30, 2004 order. On October 13, 2004, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition, which the Court accepted. SDTC declined to file a reply. On October 21, 2004, the Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss.

  On October 13, 2005, defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment. On November 4, 2005, plaintiff filed opposition. On ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.