Phomthevy
Phomthevy v. WinCo Holdings, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIBOU PHOMTHEVY, No. 2:19-cv-00041-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WINCO HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a WINCO
FOODS,
15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Defendant Winco Foods (“Winco”) moves to dismiss (“MTD”) plaintiff’s second 19 amended complaint (“SAC”), MTD, ECF No. 27, and also for sanctions, Mot. Sanctions, ECF 20 No. 32. Plaintiff Sibou Phomthevy opposes both motions. Opp’n to MTD, ECF No. 28; Opp’n to 21 Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 34. Winco replied to both oppositions. MTD Reply, ECF No. 31; 22 Sanctions Reply, ECF No. 35. The court grants the motion to dismiss and denies the motion for 23 sanctions, as explained below. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 This is defendant’s second motion to dismiss. The court reviewed the relevant 26 facts in its order on the first motion, and references them generally here. See generally Order on 27 MTD at 1–2, ECF No. 22. Plaintiff’s claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate 28 disability, failure to engage in…