Meinster

Meinster v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 20242:23-cv-02562California5,417 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

DARRIN MEINTSER,

No. 2:23-cv-02562-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER

T-MOBILE USA, INC., CONTANZA

13 THOMPSON, and DOES 1–100, inclusive, 14 Defendants.

17 This matter is before the Court on Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and Costanza Thompson’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff Darrin Meinster (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 14.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion. /// /// /// 26 27 The Court will also consider Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice and Incorporation by Reference (ECF No. 15) with his opposition. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case concerns alleged employment discrimination that Plaintiff experienced after refusing to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Specifically, Plaintiff began working for T-Mobile in 2013 as a Senior…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.