Opinion
20-cv-04058-MMC
04-26-2024
BRENDAN SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. THE HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION, Defendant.
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE
MARINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is “Defendant's Administrative Motion for Clarification or to Amend Case Schedule,” filed April 21, 2024, whereby defendant seeks clarification as to whether the Court, in its order denying defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's discrimination claims under the Fifth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), “dismissed [p]laintiff's claims of discrimination in the investigatory process.” (See Adm. Mot. at 1:28-2:2; see also Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, filed March 10, 2023.) On April 25, 2024, plaintiff filed opposition thereto.
In support of said motion, defendant, citing the Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”), states plaintiff alleged “three claims of discrimination-in the interview, on the comparative merits of his application, and in the investigatory process.” (See Adm. Mot. at 1:22-24.) In said pleading, however, plaintiff alleged under the Fifth Amendment a single claim of discrimination, which claim is based on a series of events beginning with his application, continuing through his interview, and concluding with the conduct of the grievance process. Consistent therewith, defendant, in moving for dismissal, sought a single finding that plaintiff “failed to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment because he ha[d] not alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief” (see [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss), and, in accordance therewith, the Court's order includes a single finding as to the sufficiency of plaintiff's discrimination claims, albeit one contrary to that sought by defendant.
Those allegations are incorporated by reference in his APA claim.
As to plaintiff's claim under the APA, defendant sought dismissal solely on the ground that such a claim is, as a procedural matter, unavailable.
As to defendant's request to extend the pretrial schedule to permit it to move for summary judgment to the extent plaintiff's discrimination claims are based on “the conduct of the investigation of his allegations” (see Adm. Mot. at 4:25-26), such request is hereby DENIED, there being inadequate time to have any such motion briefed and heard sufficiently in advance of the Pretrial Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.