Rajapakse v. TrueBlue

W.D. Washington

Rajapakse v. TrueBlue

DecidedFebruary 28, 2024

Docket3:22-cv-05785

StatusUnknown

This text of Rajapakse v. TrueBlue (Rajapakse v. TrueBlue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rajapakse v. TrueBlue, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE, CASE NO. C22-5785-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTIONS v. 10 TRUEBLUE et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on three motions filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 108, 127, 15 138. The Parties came before the Court on February 28, 2024, to discuss the pending motions and 16 the status of the case. After hearing from both parties, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 17 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 108) is DENIED as moot. 18 Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 127) is DENIED for the reasons stated on 19 the record. 20 Plaintiff’s emergency motion for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 138) is DENIED as moot. 21 Both parties represented they would be filing dispositive motions by the March 4, 2024 22 deadline. To be clear, to the extent either party files a motion under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 56(d), the Court will evaluate such motion under the applicable standard. See Spencer 24 1 v. Peters, 907 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1227–28 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (“The party seeking such a 2 continuance must make (a) a timely application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant 3 information, (d) where there is some basis for believing that the information sought actually

4 exists.”). 5 The Court’s current case schedule will remain in effect. 6 7 Dated this 28th day of February, 2024. 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE, CASE NO. C22-5785-KKE 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTIONS v. 10 TRUEBLUE et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on three motions filed by Plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 108, 127, 15 138. The Parties came before the Court on February 28, 2024, to discuss the pending motions and 16 the status of the case. After hearing from both parties, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 17 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 108) is DENIED as moot. 18 Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 127) is DENIED for the reasons stated on 19 the record. 20 Plaintiff’s emergency motion for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 138) is DENIED as moot. 21 Both parties represented they would be filing dispositive motions by the March 4, 2024 22 deadline. To be clear, to the extent either party files a motion under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 56(d), the Court will evaluate such motion under the applicable standard. See Spencer 24 1 v. Peters, 907 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1227–28 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (“The party seeking such a 2 continuance must make (a) a timely application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant 3 information, (d) where there is some basis for believing that the information sought actually

4 exists.”). 5 The Court’s current case schedule will remain in effect. 6 7 Dated this 28th day of February, 2024. 8 A 9 Kymberly K. Evanson 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rajapakse v. TrueBlue, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajapakse-v-trueblue-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack