McENROE v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, 15-cv-02190-HSG. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150904663
Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2015
Summary: FootNotes 1. Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of a variety of documents. Dkt. No. 11. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice as to exhibits C, D, E, and H, which are court records filed in related proceedings. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 , 248 (9th Cir. 1992) ("We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct rela
Summary: FootNotes 1. Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of a variety of documents. Dkt. No. 11. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice as to exhibits C, D, E, and H, which are court records filed in related proceedings. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244 , 248 (9th Cir. 1992) ("We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relat..
More
FootNotes
1. Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of a variety of documents. Dkt. No. 11. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for judicial notice as to exhibits C, D, E, and H, which are court records filed in related proceedings. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) ("We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Court does not rely on any of the other exhibits, Defendant's request for judicial notice is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT.
2. Defendant contends that even if Plaintiff's claim for unlawful termination was equitably tolled, such tolling ceased in August 2012, when Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union. Dkt. No. 11, Ex. H. However, in August 2012, Plaintiff's lawsuit against the Union related solely to her sexual harassment grievance. Id. The lawsuit did not encompass the termination grievance until Plaintiff amended her complaint against the Union on August 27, 2014. Id. Ex. C. Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint and the documents properly subject to judicial notice, the termination grievance appears to have concluded in August 2014, at the earliest. Plaintiff's claim was filed eight months later, still well within the two-year statute of limitations.
3. Defendant's argument that timely notice is not satisfied here because it did not hear anything more about the arbitration of the termination grievance after November 2012 is a factual dispute inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. The Court therefore does not rely on the letters submitted by Plaintiff for purposes of this motion and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's request for judicial notice. Dkt. No. 17-1.
4. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because that claim is founded directly on provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Plaintiff does not dispute this point, and agrees that the claim should be recharacterized as a "hybrid" § 301 claim.
Source: Leagle
