Opinion
Civil No. 00-1741-AS
March 19, 2001
OPINION and ORDER
The matters before the court are Plaintiff Pavel Goberman's motions in the alternative for: 1) order for judgment in his favor, or 2) demand for production of documents, or 3) demand for jury trial.
The court treats the motion for "order in his favor" as a motion for summary judgment.
Goberman also filed a second motion for summary judgment (#12) on March 8, 2001. N.W. Natural offered at oral argument, on March 14, 2001, that their response to the "order for judgment in his favor" is also to be applied to the second motion for summary judgment. Upon the agreement of all the parties at oral argument, both summary judgment motions will be considered together by the court in this opinion and order.
FACTS
Goberman, born October 16, 1937, in Russia, came to the United States in 1980 and is now a U.S. citizen. Goberman worked with a natural gas company in Russia before moving to the United States.Goberman applied in the spring of 1996 and again in June of 2000 for a position with N.W. Natural as a "meter-reader." He was not hired on either occasion. Goberman also spoke with a human resources employee for N.W. Natural in June of 2000 concerning his application for employment. She then sent Goberman a letter informing him that N.W. Natural had decided not to hire him for the meter-reader position.
In December of 2000, Goberman filed a complaint against N.W. Natural, pro se, alleging violations by N.W. Natural of several statutes: 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), 631(a), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e). Goberman alleges that N.W. Natural violated these statutes by discriminating against Goberman based on his age and national origin.
Goberman also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367 in his allegations against N.W. Natural. See Plaintiff's Complaint, page 1-2. Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits under the federal question doctrine. Section 1367 gives the federal courts supplemental jurisdiction. The court does not interpret Goberman's citation to these sections as allegations that N.W. Natural has violated them in some way. The court recognizes that Goberman most likely cited §§ 1331 and 1367 to establish that this district court has jurisdiction to hear the claims he has brought.
N.W. Natural filed an answer to Goberman's complaint on January 11, 2001, asserting eight affirmative defenses against Goberman's claims, as well as a counterclaim for dismissal with prejudice for bringing a frivolous suit and for an award for costs, attorney's fees, and disbursements to N.W. Natural incurred in defense against Goberman's suit.
On January 20, 2000, Goberman filed the motions in the alternative that are before the court today, requesting judgment in his favor, demanding production of documents, and demanding a jury trial. On February 9, 2000, this court sent Goberman an order advising party of federal summary judgment standards. N.W. Natural filed a response to Goberman's motions in the alternative on March 7, 2000, and Goberman replied to the response on March 9, 2000.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) authorizes the granting of summary judgment where no genuine issue exists regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); See also Anthes v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 162, 165 (Del. 1991). The moving party has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact essential to the nonmovant's case. Celotex, at 165.
DISCUSSION
Demand for a jury trial
N.W. Natural acknowledges Goberman's demand for trial by jury. The demand for a jury trial is therefore granted.
Demand for production of documents
Goberman's second motion in the alternative for production of documents requests from N.W. Natural, (A.) "Who was hired for open positions for METER READER (Requisition # 00058-AR, #99104) in June 2000?. . ."(B.) "What ages of hired persons? What national origin? Education, experience?"
N.W. Natural has responded to request (A.) by stating that inspection will be permitted of responsive documents, and to request (B.) by stating that "inspection will be permitted with regard to any document responsive to this request on which this information appears." N.W. Natural agreed at oral argument on March 14, 2001, to send photocopies of all responsive documents pertaining to Goberman's request for production of documents. Therefore, the demand for the production of these documents is denied as moot at this time.
Order for judgment in his favor
Initially, Goberman has failed to confer with N.W. Natural as required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) before filing this motion and has failed to submit a concise statement of facts to accompany his motion for summary judgment, as required by Local Rule 56.1(a)(2).
Goberman's motions for summary judgment are insufficient because, as the moving party, he has not established that there is an absence of genuine issues of material fact essential to the nonmovant's case. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment are denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Pavel Goberman's motion (#7) for demand for jury trial is GRANTED; for demand for production of documents is DENIED as moot, and; for summary judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff Pavel Goberman's second motion for summary judgment (#12) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED and DATED this 19th day of March, 2001.