Peterson

Peterson v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Good Law
451 F. Supp. 2d 1092·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63481
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 25, 20062:06-cr-00349California8,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 4) AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 5)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an employment discrimination case filed by Spencer Peterson III (“Plaintiff’), a California Correctional Officer, against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and two of Plaintiffs supervisors, Ronald Hansen and Derral Adams (collectively “Defendants”). On March 28, 2006, Defendants removed this case from Superior Court for the County of Kings. (Doc. 1.)

Before the court for decision is Plaintiffs motion to remand the case to state court (Doc. 4 filed Apr. 13, 2006), and Defendants’ motion to dismiss all of the claims in the case (Doc. 5.) Defendants filed opposition to the motion to remand prior to the scheduled oral argument (Doc. 6), but Plaintiff initially failed to timely file opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, he was granted leave to late file subsequent to oral argument and did so. Plaintiff submitted an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 1, 2006. (Doc. 10.) On June 2, 2006, Defendants filed a partial objection arguing that Plaintiffs submission was untimely and beyond scope. (Doc. 11.)

II.…

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.