Paxton

Paxton v. City of Montebello

Good Law
712 F. Supp. 2d 1017·2010 WL 2867618·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84959
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 19, 2010Case CV 09-3691-RCCalifornia2,184 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chapman, J.

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ REMEDIES

On March 18, 2010, this Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on their claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), except for plaintiffs’ claim that they did not have to complete probation upon returning from military service. See Paxton v. City of Montebello, 712 F.Supp.2d 1007 , 2010 WL 1255915 (C.D.Cal.2010). This Court also ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the amount of plaintiffs’ damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and, in the event an amicable agreement could not be reached, to file briefs addressing plaintiffs’ remedies. On April 16, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of motion for back-pay, liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, a supporting memorandum of points and authorities, and the supporting declaration of Carolina Veronica Diaz with exhibits, and on April 19, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation, agreeing to certain facts relating to plaintiffs’ damages and remedies. On April 28, 2010, the City filed its opposing memorandum of points and authorities, and on May 5, 2010, plaintiffs filed their reply. Oral argument was heard on May 19, 2010.

DISCUSSION

To enforce…

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.