THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
June 14, 2011
FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Court Judge
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
Order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part;
Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #40). This matter is also before the Court on Defendant's cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #32).The Court has reviewed the moving papers, opposition papers, reply briefs and has heard oral argument on the motions from the parties on May 13, 2011.
As explained in the Court's Orders on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication (docket #98), the Court Orders the Following:
1. The Court rules upon Defendant's evidentiary objection to Plaintiff's medical evidence and finds that such evidence shall be admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule (FRE 807).
2. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of serious health condition is GRANTED, and the Court finds and summarily adjudicates that this element of Plaintiff's claims is proven.
3. Plaintiff and Defendant FPF's motions on the first and third claims regarding interference for mischaracterizing Plaintiff's leave in violation the FMLA and CFRA are DENIED.
4. Plaintiff and Defendant's motions on the second and fourth claims regarding interference for termination of Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA and CFRA are DENIED.
5. Defendant's motion regarding the fifth claim for the failure to prevent discrimination under the FEHA is GRANTED.
6. Defendant's motion regarding the sixth claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff is the prevailing party regarding the failure to promptly pay wages owed.
8. Defendant's motions regarding punitive damages for the claims arising under State law are GRANTED.
9. Defendant's motion regarding penalty damages for failure to promptly pay wages owed is DENIED.
10. Plaintiff's motion regarding the affirmative defense of unclean hands is DENIED.
11. Plaintiff's motion regarding the affirmative defenses of waiver, estoppel, laches, acquiescence, and/or consent is GRANTED.
12. Plaintiff's motion regarding the affirmative defense of good faith is DENIED.
13. Plaintiff's motion regarding the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.