DAVID A. ROSENFELD, Bar No. 058163, ANNE I. YEN, Bar No. 187291, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, A Professional Corporation, Alameda, California, Attorneys for Defendant United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 5.
FRANK E. MAYO, Bar No. 42972, LAW OFFICES OF FRANK E. MAYO, Los Altos, C, Attorney for Plaintiff Humberto Arruda.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
Plaintiff's counsel substituted in effective June 6, 2013. Previously, Plaintiff was in pro per. Counsel for the parties request continuance of the case management conference to allow time to confer regarding initial disclosures, discovery and other litigation procedures. In the event the Court grants continuance of the case management conference, for scheduling purposes please note that counsel will be unavailable June 27 through July 7. At this time, the parties submit the following pursuant to Northern District Local Rules.
1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
Plaintiff filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant removed to this Court on March 18, 2013.
In Plaintiff's complaint, he states that he was an employee of Lucky Stores, Inc. as a meat cutter. He states that he was discharged from Lucky Stores, Inc. on August 11, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually harassed by the meat manager at Lucky Stores; that he allegedly reported unfair treatment to his representative; and that Defendant, UFCW-5, allegedly refused to investigate and take action to prevent discrimination. Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations, except that Defendant agrees Plaintiff was a former employee of Lucky Stores in a bargaining unit represented by Local 5.
3. LEGAL ISSUES
In Defendant's Answer, Defendant denies the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and alleges fifteen affirmative defenses including, but not limited to, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, internal union remedies and contractual remedies; preemption by federal labor law; and statute of limitations.
Plaintiff's attorney recently substituted in and the substitution was approved on June 6, 2013. Previously, Plaintiff was in pro per. Counsel for the parties have not yet had the 2 opportunity to confer regarding other anticipated motions, but they will do so at the earliest opportunity.
5. AMENDMENT OF ...