Krylova

Krylova v. Genentech Inc.

Good Law
37 F. Supp. 3d 1156·2014 WL 1478698·123 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 194·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52052
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 14, 2014No. C 12-4120 PJHCalifornia6,188 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hamilton, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment came on for hearing before this court *1158 on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff Irina Krylova (“plaintiff’) appeared through her counsel, Richard Rogers. Defendant Genentech Inc. (“defendant” or “Genentech”) appeared through its counsel, Lynn Hermle and Allison Giese. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion as, follows.

BACKGROUND

This is an employment discrimination case. While the parties present competing versions of the relevant facts, they do agree that plaintiff was employed by defendant as a senior research associate from May 2007 until her termination on July 23, 2009. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), f 3-4.

Neither the FAC nor plaintiffs opposition brief contain many of the facts relevant to plaintiffs claims. Instead, plaintiff has attached to her opposition brief a declaration setting forth most of the relevant allegations. See Dkt. 59. In her declaration, plaintiff alleges that she “had a stellar record of scientific…

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.