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.

Baltz v. Baltimore Aircoil Co.

May 13, 2010

MICHELLE BALTZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off: 5/2/11 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 5/16/11 Non-Dispositive Motion

Date of Scheduling Conference. May 12, 2010.

Hearing Date: 6/17/11 9:00 Ctrm. 8 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 6/2/11 Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 7/11/11 10:00 Ctrm. 3 Settlement Conference Date: 5/18/11 10:00 Ctrm. 8 Pre-Trial Conference Date: 8/22/11 11:00 Ctrm. 3 Trial Date: 9/27/11 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-13 days)

I. Summary of Pleadings.

1. Plaintiff's Complaint which was originally filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Madera and removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship, alleges violation of California Government Code § 12940, et seq. (sexual harassment and retaliation and sexual battery). The Plaintiff's complaint was filed against Baltimore Aircoil Company and Javier Garcia. Javier Garcia was dismissed from the action when it was pending in state court and is no longer a party.

2. The Plaintiff's complaint seeks compensatory damages for present and future loss of wages, earnings, salary, bonuses and other employment benefits; interest; general damages for emotional and mental distress and physical personal injury; general damages for pain and suffering; attorney's fees and costs; and punitive damages.

3. The answer of Defendant, Baltimore Aircoil Company denies the allegations asserted against it by the Plaintiff.

II. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.

III. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings.

1. Plaintiff, Michelle Baltz, was an employee at Baltimore Aircoil Company located in Madera, between February 1985 and 2008.

2. In March 2005, Javier Garcia, a Baltimore Aircoil Company Control Manager, gave massages to Ms. Baltz's head and shoulders in her private office. In early April, during one of these sessions, Mr. Garcia grabbed Ms. Baltz's breasts. Ms. Baltz objected, Mr. Garcia left and did not continue his actions.

3. In mid-April 2005, Ms. Baltz reported the incident to Douglas White, her supervisor and the plant manager. Mr. White confronted Mr. Garcia and verbally reprimanded him. Further investigation resulted in the termination of Mr. Garcia in September 2005.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Ms. Baltz contends that following these incidents she was harassed and retaliated against for complaining of the harassment. She claims that she was ultimately fired in retaliation.

2. Baltimore Aircoil Company contends that Ms. Baltz was terminated in February 2008, after numerous verbal and written performance counseling sessions with the new plant manager, Luke Rubino, because Ms. Baltz failed to perform her job duties in a competent manner.

3. All remaining facts are disputed.

IV. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. The parties agree that the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule of ...


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.