Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Strolberg v. United States Marshals Service

March 25, 2010

RON STROLBERG, CHARLES HAWKINS, JOHN BIANCHI, PETE CHIABAUDO, ALBERTO GARCIA, WILLIAM GRAY, WALTER LAMB, JAMES SHERIDAN, FLOYD VOELTZ, AND ISAIAH WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BOTH BY AND THROUGH THE HONORABLE ERIC HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable David A. Carter United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING AND DENYING MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Ron Strolberg, Charles Hawkins, John Bianchi, Pete Chiabaudo, Alberto Garcia, William Gray, Walter Lamb, James Sheridan, Floyd Voetz, and Isaiah Williams' ("Plaintiffs") Motion for Reinstatement of Rehabilitation Act Claim Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) ("Rule 60(b) Motion") (Docket No. 272) and Motion for Hearing on Pending Matter ("Motion for Hearing") (Docket No. 282).

The Court finds that the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument.

FED. R. CIV. P. 78. As such, the Motion for Hearing is DENIED.

As to the Rule 60(b) Motion, after having considered the moving, opposing, and replying papers thereon, the Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case began its life in January 2003 as a class action on behalf of as many as 4,500 Court Security Officers ("CSOs") nationwide. The original defendants were the security companies who directly employed the Plaintiffs and the government agencies ("Federal Defendants") responsible for the implementation of medical standards that Plaintiffs claimed were applied as a pretext for age discrimination. The case was not certified as a class action, and much of the first amended complaint was dismissed. By December 15, 2004, all claims against the security companies were dropped, which left only the Federal Defendants in the case and reduced the total number of plaintiffs to twenty-five.

On January 19, 2005, the Court denied leave to amend the complaint to add a procedural due process claim. Among other rulings, the Court also dismissed fifteen Plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims without prejudice and granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Defendants with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claims of the remaining ten Plaintiffs. On January 23, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the part of this Court's January 19, 2005 Order granting summary judgment to the Federal Defendants with respect to the ten Plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims. In the same disposition, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court's January 19, 2005 Order denying leave to amend to add a procedural due process claim and remanded. Strolberg v. ALKAL Security Co., 2005 WL 5629026 (D. Idaho Jan. 19, 2005), affirmed in part and reversed in part 210 Fed. App'x 683 (9th Cir. 2006).

The remaining Plaintiffs were then given leave to amend the complaint to include the procedural due process claim, which alleged that Plaintiff Federal CSOs were wrongfully terminated from their employment as CSOs in violation of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Defendants as to the procedural due process claims on June 18, 2008, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on November 30, 2009. Strolberg v. U.S. Marxhals Service, 350 Fed. App'x 113 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6) for the Court to set aside the January 19, 2005 grant of summary judgment in favor of the Federal Defendants with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claims.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b) states:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.