Karen Ginsberg v. Paramount Communications Corporation Paramount Pictures Pet II Productions, Inc. Ralph Singleton

52 F.3d 333 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Karen GINSBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; Paramount Pictures; Pet II Productions, Inc.; Ralph Singleton, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-56383. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 8, 1995. * Decided April 7, 1995. Before: BROWNING, BOOCHEVER, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Karen Ginsberg filed an action against the defendants in California state court, alleging general negligence, intentional tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. The defendants removed the action to federal court on the grounds that Ginsberg's claims were governed by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and by Title VII. Ginsberg did not object to the removal, and the district court assumed jurisdiction over the case. During the course of discovery, Ginsberg violated a local rule requiring an early meeting of counsel. The…