Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 MAZEN ARAKJI, Case No. 19-cv-02936-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT

10 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC.,, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Mazen Arakji’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in this hiring discrimination case. See Motion, ECF No. 110. 15 Mr. Arakji seeks relief from the Court’s judgment in favor of Defendant Microchip Technology, 16 Inc. (“Microchip”) following the Court’s order granting Microchip’s summary judgment motion. 17 See ECF Nos. 108, 109. Under Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that Mr. Arakji’s motion can be 18 resolved without oral argument. Based on the below reasoning, the Court DENIES Mr. Arakji’s 19 motion. 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final 21 judgment for one of the following reasons: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 22 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 23 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 24 intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is 25 void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 26 that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any 27 other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 1 for discrimination under the Fair Employment and House Act (“FEHA”). See Summary Judgment 2 Motion, ECF No. 100. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for 3 discrimination claims, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See 4 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). If the plaintiff succeeds, then the 5 burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the 6 plaintiff’s rejection. See id. If the defendant meets its burden, then the plaintiff must show that the 7 defendant’s stated reason for the plaintiff’s rejection was in fact pretext for discrimination. See id. 8 Mr. Arakji alleged that Microchip discriminated against him based on his religion, national 9 origin, race, and disability by declining to hire him for a Senior Engineer position. See First 10 Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22; see also ECF No. 42. In its summary judgment motion, 11 Microchip argued that Mr. Arakji had not established a prima facie discrimination case because 12 Microchip did not have actual knowledge of his religion, national origin, race, or disability, 13 including because Mr. Arakji’s interviewers at Microchip did not notice his alleged disability (an 14 issue with his left hand). See Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. 100 at 13–17. Further, 15 Microchip argued that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to hire Mr. Arakji, 16 including lack of relevant experience and gaps in his employment history. See id. at 18–22. In its 17 order granting Microchip’s summary judgment motion, the Court found that while there were 18 disputes of material fact as to whether Mr. Arakji had established a prima facie case of 19 discrimination, there were no disputes of fact that Microchip had articulated legitimate, 20 nondiscriminatory reasons for Mr. Arakji’s rejection. See Order, ECF No. 108 at 12–13. Further, 21 the Court found that Mr. Arakji provided no evidence that Microchip’s articulated reasons were 22 pretextual. See id. at 13–15. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of 23 Microchip. 24 In his motion for relief from the Court’s final judgment, Mr. Arakji argues that “there is no 25 way” his disability would have gone unnoticed to his interviewers at Microchip. See Motion, 26 ECF No. 110 ¶ 2. Otherwise, Mr. Arakji provides rambling and incomprehensible briefing on 27 “[c]orruption in government,” which has no relevance to the present case. See id. at 1–4. 1 relief from the Court’s judgment. Mr. Arakji’s only relevant argument is that his interviewers at 2 Microchip must have noticed his disability. See Motion, ECF No. 110 ¶ 2. Mr. Arakji’s argument 3 is insufficient to meet his burden on a Rule 60 motion for two reasons. First, Mr. Arakji’s argument 4 does not fit into any of the categories of reasons that can justify relief from a final judgment under 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Mr. Arakji already raised the argument that his interviewers 6 must have noticed his disability in his opposition to Microchip’s summary judgment motion. See 7 Opposition, ECF No. 103 ¶¶ 21–24. Courts decline to grant Rule 60 motions based on previously 8 raised arguments. See Amer. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Amer. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 9 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion where movants “simply reargued their 10 case and offered no basis for withdrawal of the . . . order” at issue). 11 Second, Mr. Arakji’s argument relates to his prima facie case for discrimination—which was 12 not the basis for the Court’s summary judgment order. As outlined above, the Court found that there 13 were disputes of material fact regarding whether Mr. Arakji had made a prima facie case for 14 discrimination. See Order, ECF No. 108 at 10–12. Accordingly, the Court’s summary judgment 15 order was not based on Mr. Arakji’s prima facie case. Rather, the Court granted summary judgment 16 in favor of Microchip because it found that there were no disputes of material fact that Microchip 17 had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to hire Mr. Arakji. See id. 18 at 12–13. Additionally, the Court found that Mr. Arakji provided no evidence to indicate that 19 Microchip’s articulated reasons were pretextual. See id. at 13–15. Mr. Arakji fails to provide 20 arguments or evidence challenging the Court’s findings regarding Microchip’s legitimate, 21 nondiscriminatory reasons for declining to hire Mr. Arakji. Accordingly, even if the Court were to 22 agree with Mr. Arakji—that “there is no way” his disability would have gone unnoticed during his 23 interviews with Microchip—this would not change the ruling of its summary judgment order. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Based on the above reasoning, the Court DENIES Mr. Arakji’s Motion for Relief from Final 2 || Judgment. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: May 9, 2022 kom Lh ham tn) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28