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.

Kirk v. Toys "R" Us

May 12, 2009

PAUL KIRK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOYS "R" US, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16)

Discovery Deadlines: Initial Disclosures: June 26, 2009 Non-Expert: December 30, 2009 Expert Disclosure: November 30, 2009 Supp.Expert Discl: December 15, 2009 Expert Discovery: January 29, 2010 Motion Deadlines: Non-Dispositive: February 5, 2010 Dispositive: April 2, 2010 Pre-Trial Conference: May 6, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 10 (GSA), 6th Floor Trial: July 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 10 (GSA), 6th Floor 5-7 Day Jury Trial Settlement Conference:

I. Date of Scheduling Conference May 12, 2009.

Not yet scheduled

III. Summary of Pleadings

1. Complaint. Plaintiff alleges three claims for relief arising from his prior employment with Defendant. These claims include:

(1) Disability Discrimination - Cal. Gov't Code § 12940(a);

(2) Failure to engage in good faith interactive process and failure to accommodate - Cal. Gov't Code §§12940(m)(n); and

(3) wrongful termination - violation of public policy.

2. Answer. Defendant filed a general denial to Plaintiff's Complaint and asserted twenty affirmative defenses.

3. SUMMARY OF CONTESTED/UNCONTESTED FACTS

It is uncontested that Defendant was the former employer of Plaintiff Paul Kirk and Plaintiff's employment ended with Defendant effective July 31, 2007. All other material facts in the pleadings are contested.

4. DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES

Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed. The following legal issues are disputed:

(1) Whether Defendant was subject to and breached a statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff;

(2) Whether Defendant was subject to and breached a statutory obligation to engage in a good faith interactive process with Plaintiff;

(3) Whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability;

(4) Whether Defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud, thereby justifying punitive damages under California Civil Code §3294;

(5) The extent to which Plaintiff suffered damages due to Defendant's ...


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.