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.

Dang v. Solar Turbines

December 18, 2007

CHARLIE T. DANG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SOLAR TURBINES, INC., A CATERPILLAR COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

ORDER: (1)GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 10];

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT [Doc. No. 10];

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH FURTHER MOTIONS [Doc. No. 16];

(4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISBAR WILLIAM WHELAN [Doc. No. 16];

(5) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUALIFY WILLIAM WHELAN AS CO-DEFENDANT [Doc. No. 16]; AND

(6) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 19].

On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff Charlie T. Dang, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination complaint against his employer, Defendant Solar Turbines, Inc. On April 19, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On July 3, 2007, the Court granted a motion for a more definite statement and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his complaint.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 24, 2007 setting forth the following ten causes of action in the caption: (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Malicious Practices of Employment; (3) Intentional Employment Discrimination; (4) Intentional Infliction of Physical and Emotional Distress; (5) Sexual Harassment; (6) Retaliation in Employment; (7) Racial Discrimination; (8) Age Discrimination in Employment; (9) Failure to Reasonable Accommodations [sic]; (10) Front Pay Discrimination in Employment. In the body of the FAC, Plaintiff further stated that he alleges causes of action "under and pursuant to" the Family Medical Leave Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and the California Family Rights Act.

On August 10, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's FAC, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. On October 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to quash Defendant's further motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint; (2) a motion to disbar attorney William V. Whelan; and (3) a motion to qualify Mr. Whelan as a co-defendant. On October 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed what he called "Amended Motions for Sanctions" requesting that the court award sanctions in addition to the above requested relief.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss and DENIES Defendant's motion for a more definite statement. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions to quash further motions, to disbar Mr. Whelan, and qualify Mr. Whelan as a co-defendant. The Court further DENIES Plaintiff's amended motion for sanctions.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's FAC. The Court makes no finding as to the truth of these facts.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant Solar Turbines on July 1, 1991. (FAC, p.2) Plaintiff performed well and received merit increases every year until 2000. (Id.) Starting in early 2000, Plaintiff began suffering from "permanent left leg coldness" and resulting numbness in the leg and severe hemorrhoids. (FAC 1) As a result of this condition, Plaintiff was "prevented from standing or walking for 10-15 minutes at a time." (Id.)

Around the same time, Plaintiff's Manager Sharlene Mullen began "scapegoating" Plaintiff as a poor performer, despite his good performance. (Id.) Mullen did so in order to prove to her superiors that she "was serious about dealing with poor performance in her department." (FAC 2, Ex. D) Mullen targeted Plaintiff by forcing Plaintiff to work on the shop floor and to participate in a training class which he did not need and asking his co-workers to "write up against" him. (Id.) Mullen chose Dang to scapegoat because he was "known as a submissive guy." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Mullen's treatment of him constitutes sexual harassment and a hostile working environment. (FAC 1)

On September 18, 2003, Scott Jaykell, Human Resources, met with Plaintiff to discuss Plaintiff's alleged poor performance. (FAC 4) During this discussion, Jaykell discovered that Plaintiff was suffering from depression and placed Dang on a disability leave under FMLA beginning on September 19, 2003. (FAC 4, 5) Around this time, Dr. Rosben Gutierrez, Plaintiff's psychiatrist, diagnosed him with severe depression. (FAC 7)

On October 20, 2003, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Scott Jaykell complaining about the unfair treatment he ...


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.