Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Paterson v. California Dep't of General Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 16, 2008

SHARON PATERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, RAYMOND ASBELL, AND INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Sharon Paterson's post-trial Motion for Injunctive Relief.*fn1

Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems' ("Inter-Con") seeking damages for sexual harassment and retaliation under both California and federal law.

The matter was submitted to a jury which found in favor of Plaintiff. The jury also found that Plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages. The Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff now moves the Court to enter an injunction purging its records of any reference to Plaintiff's termination, converting her wrongful termination to a voluntary resignation, and confirming said voluntary resignation in response to any inquiries from Plaintiff's prospective employers.

Plaintiff's motion is essentially a motion to alter or amend the judgment entered by this Court to add an injunction relief which was never included in the prayer for relief in Plaintiff's Complaint. As such, Plaintiff's motion is governed by Rule 59(e)'s requirement that the motion be filed within 10 days after the entry of the judgment. The Court entered the Second Amended Judgment on April 14, 2008. Plaintiff filed this motion May 13, 2008 - well past the 10-day deadline provided in Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied as untimely.

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has already been compensated for the injury she now asserts in that the jury awarded her "other non-economic damages" after her attorney argued that she was entitled to damages for future losses.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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