(PS)Jones v. BergElectric Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN KEITH JONES, No. 2:21-cv-00614-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BERGELECTRIC, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 18 302(c)(19). On December 20, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 19 which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 20 within fourteen days. On January 3, 2022, defendant Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. 21 Northern California Chapter Unilateral Apprenticeship Committee (“ABC”) filed partial 22 objections, objecting only to the findings and recommendations pertaining to the failure to 23 exhaust argument. (ECF No. 57.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The 27 court writes separately here only to address ABC’s objections. 28 ///// 1 ABC argues Mr. Jones cannot state a claim against it because he did not name ABC in the 2 charge he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See Objs. at 2–3 (citing 3 Charge, ECF No. 43-2). ABC does not disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the 4 applicable law, which correctly explained that “the failure to name a party in an EEOC charge 5 precludes the possibility of suing [that party] under Title VII unless the unnamed party was 6 (1) involved in the acts which were the subject of the EEOC charge, or (2) ‘should have 7 anticipated’ that it would be named in a Title VII suit.” F&Rs at 5–7 (quoting Ortez v. 8 Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Objs. at 2–3. 9 The Magistrate Judge correctly took judicial notice of the contents of Mr. Jones’s EEOC 10 charge. See F&Rs at 4–5 n.2 (citing Minor v. Fedex Office and Print Services Inc., 11 78 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1027–28 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). In that notice, Mr. Jones alleged the “reason” 12 his former employer “stated” for discipline against him was false. See Charge of Discrimination, 13 ECF No. 43-2. Later, Mr. Jones alleges, he learned ABC had “made defamatory statements and 14 placed them in [his] personnel file.” Compl. at 5, ECF No. 1. One way to understand these 15 allegations is that the false and defamatory statement by ABC in Mr. Jones’s personnel file was 16 the same as the false statement that was the basis for discipline against him, which he identified in 17 his EEOC charge. If so, then it would be plausible to infer that ABC was involved in the acts that 18 were the subject of the EEOC charge. At this early stage, this court must draw these favorable 19 inferences. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Magistrate Judge’s analysis was 20 thus correct. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 22 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 20, 2021 (ECF No. 56) are 23 adopted in full; 24 2. Defendant ABC’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43) is granted and plaintiff’s claims 25 against defendant ABC are dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to 26 effectuate proper service; and 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pre-trial 2 proceedings. 3 || DATED: February 18, 2022. 4 5 ( ti / ¢ q_/ ‘ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28