From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhodes v. Dyson, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION (SANTA ANA)
Sep 26, 2013
Case No. SACV12-616 JVS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. SACV12-616 JVS (JPRx)

2013-09-26

DENISE RHODES, Plaintiff, v. DYSON, INC., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants.

Attorneys for Defendant DYSON, INC.


ROBERT S. SHWARTS (STATE BAR NO. 196803)
rshwarts@orrick.com
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2669
Telephone: +1-415-773-5700
Facsimile: +1-415-773-5759
SARA E. DIONNE (STATE BAR NO. 221326)
sdionne@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, California 95814-4497
Telephone: +1-916-447-9200
Facsimile: +1-916-329-4900
Attorneys for Defendant
DYSON, INC.

JUDGMENT

This action came on for trial on September 10, 2013, in Courtroom 10C of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge, presiding. Plaintiff Denise Rhodes ("Plaintiff") appeared by her attorneys, Gary I. Adler and Dale E. Motley, and Defendant Dyson, Inc. ("Defendant"), appeared by its attorneys, Robert S. Shwarts and Sara E. Dionne.

A jury of eight persons was regularly impaneled and sworn to try the action. Witnesses were sworn and examined. After hearing the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and instructions of the Court, the jury retired to consider its verdict, subsequently returned to court, and being called, duly rendered its verdict in writing. The jury's Special Verdict form is hereby incorporated by reference.

Pursuant to the jury verdict, the Court NOW ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all of Plaintiff's claims;

2. Plaintiff shall have and recover nothing against Defendant on her complaint for disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (including her claims for disability discrimination; failure to make reasonable accommodation; failure to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process; and failure to prevent discrimination) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and

3. Defendant is the prevailing party and may recover its costs to the extent ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

Hon. James V. Selna

United States District Judge
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

ROBERT S. SHWARTS

SARA E. DIONNE

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

By: _________________

SARA E. DIONNE

Attorneys for Defendant

DYSON, INC.

DALE E. MOTLEY

GARY I. ADLER

OGDEN & MOTLEY

By: _________________

GARY I. ADLER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DENISE RHODES

I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Gary I. Adler, Attorneys for Plaintiff Denise Rhodes.

ROBERT S. SHWARTS

SARA E. DIONNE

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

By: _________________

SARA E. DIONNE

Attorneys for Defendant

DYSON, INC.


Summaries of

Rhodes v. Dyson, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION (SANTA ANA)
Sep 26, 2013
Case No. SACV12-616 JVS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Rhodes v. Dyson, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DENISE RHODES, Plaintiff, v. DYSON, INC., an Illinois corporation; and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION (SANTA ANA)

Date published: Sep 26, 2013

Citations

Case No. SACV12-616 JVS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2013)