Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade

N.D. California

Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade

DecidedNovember 5, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-01474

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade (Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRINA HILL, Case No. 18-cv-01474-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 172 10 GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. 14 Dkt. No. 172. In its reply brief, Defendant argued for the first time that “as a matter of law, three 15 alleged incidents over the course of Plaintiff’s four month employment are not sufficiently severe 16 or pervasive.” Dkt. No. 174 at 4 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 17 (1998)). Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed 18 waived, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court may consider new 19 arguments raised in a reply brief “only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond.” 20 Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, 21 Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed three pages, addressing whether 22 the three alleged incidents are severe and pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim 23 under relevant Ninth Circuit caselaw. Plaintiff may not repeat arguments raised in her opposition 24 brief. In her sur-reply, Plaintiff should explain how the incidents in this case differ from those in 25 Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) and Westendorf v. W. Coast 26 Contractors of Nevada, Inc., 712 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2013), cases in which the Ninth Circuit held 27 the alleged misconduct did not establish sufficiently severe or pervasive sexual harassment. 1 Plaintiff must file the brief by November 15, 2019. No responsive filings will be 2 || permitted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 11/5/2019 5 Abeer 5 □□□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

it

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRINA HILL, Case No. 18-cv-01474-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 172 10 GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. 14 Dkt. No. 172. In its reply brief, Defendant argued for the first time that “as a matter of law, three 15 alleged incidents over the course of Plaintiff’s four month employment are not sufficiently severe 16 or pervasive.” Dkt. No. 174 at 4 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 17 (1998)). Although arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are ordinarily deemed 18 waived, see Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999), the Court may consider new 19 arguments raised in a reply brief “only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond.” 20 Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, 21 Plaintiff is directed to submit a supplemental brief, not to exceed three pages, addressing whether 22 the three alleged incidents are severe and pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim 23 under relevant Ninth Circuit caselaw. Plaintiff may not repeat arguments raised in her opposition 24 brief. In her sur-reply, Plaintiff should explain how the incidents in this case differ from those in 25 Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000) and Westendorf v. W. Coast 26 Contractors of Nevada, Inc., 712 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2013), cases in which the Ninth Circuit held 27 the alleged misconduct did not establish sufficiently severe or pervasive sexual harassment. 1 Plaintiff must file the brief by November 15, 2019. No responsive filings will be 2 || permitted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 11/5/2019 5 Abeer 5 □□□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

it

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hill v. Goodfellow Top Grade, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-goodfellow-top-grade-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack