FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter came before the court on September 19, 2008, for hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Plaintiff Idowu O. Oghogho, proceeding pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Kenneth C. Absalom, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendant.
After hearing argument on defendant's motion, the court granted plaintiff leave to supplement his untimely opposition with a written response to defendant's statement of undisputed facts. See Local Rule 56-260(b). The court also granted defendant an opportunity to file a reply to plaintiff's untimely opposition.
Upon consideration of all written materials filed by the parties in connection with defendant's motion, the parties' arguments in open court, and the entire file, the undersigned recommends that defendant's motion be granted and this case be closed.
Plaintiff commenced this action in the Sacramento County Superior Court on June 27, 2007, and filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2007. Defendant Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, sued as Operating Engineers Local 3, District 80, was served with the initial complaint and summons on July 3, 2007, and was subsequently served with the amended complaint.
On August 1, 2007, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's pleadings and removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 on the grounds that plaintiff has alleged violations of federal statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and has asserted state law claims that are preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), because the claims require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.*fn1
A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference was held on February 8, 2008, and a scheduling order was filed on February 21, 2008. Defendant's June 5, 2008 motion for extension of discovery deadlines was denied by the assigned district judge on June 12, 2008, and defendant's July 30, 2008 discovery motion was denied by the undersigned as untimely on August 6, 2008. Discovery closed on August 1, 2008.*fn2
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Owen v. Local No. 169, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir. 1992).
A party moving for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
"[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.'" Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied." Id. at 323.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles, 607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979). The opposing party must demonstrate that a fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the "purpose of summary ...