Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHAEL ALAN BONAZZA, 7 Case No. 23-cv-01161-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS MUFG BANK, LTD., 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 109, 111 Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiff has filed three summary judgment motions in this case. See docket nos. 108, 109 14 and 111. The Court has already denied one of these motions (docket no. 108) as moot because it 15 is identical to a subsequent motion (docket no. 109). The Court now denies the two remaining 16 summary judgment motions (“Motions”). In docket no. 109, Plaintiff has filed a one-page motion 17 stating as follows: Plaintiff is asking the court for summary judgment in Plaintiff[’]s 18 favor in the amount of 6,918,000 dollars, which represents 2.9 Million dollars in lost wages based on the plaintiff[’]s 2022 contract, 2.5 19 Million dollars in incremental FP + A for discretionary performance, 1.2 Million dollars for distress caused by this case and 318,000 for 20 back pay based on the expected trial timeline. 21 Docket no. 109. No supporting brief was filed; nor did Plaintiff offer any evidence to support his 22 request for summary judgment. The motion in docket no. 111, which was filed four days after 23 docket no. 109, is virtually the same as docket no. 109 except that the dollar amounts have been 24 slightly increased. Again, no legal brief or evidence was filed in support of the motion. 25 Summary judgment on a claim or defense is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is 26 no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 27 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show 1 moving party’s claim, or to a defense on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of 2 persuasion at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The legal standards and 3 || requirements for filing or opposing summary judgment are described in detail in the Court’s 4 || Notice Regarding Summary Judgment Motions, which the Court issued at the outset of this case 5 because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. See docket no. 62. 6 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to extend his employment contract 7 because of his gender (male) and race (Caucasian). The Court construed his complaint as 8 || asserting a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See docket no. 9 30. To prevail on that claim, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant’s failure to hire him was the 10 || result of discriminatory intent by: 1) producing direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating 11 that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated Defendant; or 2) raising an inference 12 || of discriminatory intent under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 5 13 Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). On summary judgment, the Court must determine whether there is a 14 || triable issue of fact as to either of these issues. Having failed to address his specific claim or offer 3 15 any evidence or argument related to that claim, Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to 16 summary judgment based on the undisputed facts. The Motions are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: May 29, 2024 21 ZL € J PH C. SPERO 22 nited States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28