ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 10, 11)
Plaintiff Ricardo Banuelos ("Banuelos") has brought various federal and state employment discrimination claims against his former employer, Defendant Waste Connections, Inc. ("WCI"). WCI now moves for summary judgment on all claims. Banuelos has filed no response to WCI's motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant WCI's motion.
With the assistance of counsel, Banuelos and his wife filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition for bankruptcy with attached Schedules and Disclosure Statements on April 27, 2011. DUMF 1. Schedule B of the Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition requires debtors to list all personal property of any kind. DUMF 2. Question 21 of Schedule B asks the debtor to list "other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and rights to setoff claims." DUMF 3. In response to Question 21, Banuelos marked "none." DUMF 4.
Banuelos's employment with WCI was terminated on July 11, 2011. DUMF 5. At no time after July 11, 2011, did Banuelos amend his bankruptcy schedules or disclosure statements to list his potential claims against WCI as a contingent and unliquidated asset of the bankruptcy estate. DUMF 6.
The Bankruptcy Court issued a Notice of Filing Report of No Distribution and Order Fixing Deadline to Object, which gave Banuelos's creditors until July 22, 2011 to object to Banuelos being discharged form bankruptcy with no distribution to creditors. DUMF 7. The creditors and the Bankruptcy Court relied on information in the bankruptcy record, and the Bankruptcy Court issued a Notice of Discharge fully discharging Banuelos of all his debt on August 22, 2011. DUMF 8. The Bankruptcy Court then issued its Final Decree closing Banuelos's bankruptcy on August 26, 2011. DUMF 9.
Banuelos filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on January 5, 2012, and received a right to sue letter on April 11, 2012. DUMF 11. Banuelos filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") on March 16, 2012 and received a right to sue letter on March 28, 2012. DUMF 10. The EEOC and DFEH complaints alleged discrimination on the basis of age and national origin. DUMF 12.
Banuelos filed this lawsuit on June 21, 2012. See DUMF 13. Banuelos's Complaint alleges that he suffered age discrimination during his employment in violation of federal and state law, and was retaliated against, subjected to a hostile environment, and discriminated against on the basis national origin and race, all under California law. See DUMF 14.
Banuelos testified at his deposition that prior to his termination he was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of his race and national origin by the comments made by co-workers Ramon Gonzalez and William Pejsa. DUMF 15. Banuelos also testified that he believed he was terminated by WCI because: (1) Pesja and Michelle Erwin believed he was too slow and too old to do his job; and (2) he had made complaints about the harassment and discrimination by Gonzalez and Pesja. DUMF 16. Banuelos also testified at his November 7, 2012 deposition that he was still in bankruptcy. See DUMF 17.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FRAMEWORK
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; Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying the portions of the declarations (if any), pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the movant. Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984. Where the non-moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the movant may prevail by presenting evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim or by merely pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-moving party's claim. See Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984; Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. If the nonmoving party fails to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. The court has the discretion in appropriate circumstances to consider materials that are not properly brought to its attention, but the court is not required to examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references. See Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029-31 (9th Cir. 2001).
Defendant's Argument WCI argues that judicial estoppel applies to each cause of action in this case. When Banuelos filed for bankruptcy, he had a continuing duty to disclose contingent assets, such legal causes of action. When Banuelos was terminated, he had sufficient knowledge of the facts giving rise to his causes of action and the bankruptcy proceeding was still on-going. Because Banuelos did not disclose his causes of action, judicial estoppel bars his claims.
Banuelos has filed no opposition or response ...