Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Rosval A. Patterson, SBN 018872 Patterson & Associates, P.L.L.C. 777 East Thomas Road, Suite 210 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Tel.: (602) 462-1004 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for the Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CIV 04-429 PHX MHM PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING AND JOINT STATEMENT

Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, vs. John E. Potter, Postmaster General , Defendant.

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, asks the court to deny Defendant's
18

Motion to Continue Hearing and Joint Statement and Request for Expedited Ruling.
19

The hearing is merely to discuss equitable remedies; specifically, backpay, reinstatement
20

and attorney's fees so that judgment may be entered.
21

Judith Sandoval the U. S. Postal Service Attorney is more than qualified to
22

proceed with the hearing. Ms. Sandoval is certified by the Federal Court and actively
23

participated in defending the case. The September 24, 2007, hearing is for the purpose of
24

determining back pay, reinstatement and attorney's fees. Ms. Sandoval, an attorney from
25

1

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 190

Filed 09/12/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

the Regional Counsel's office is fully qualified to discuss these issues. In her position she routinely deals with the issues of back pay, reinstatement and attorney's fees. Additionally, no other attorney would be in a better position than Ms. Sandoval's to present Regional Counsel's offices position regarding back pay, reinstatement and attorney's fees. The trial transcripts are unnecessary for the hearing. The trial is over in this matter and the jury found for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Defendants can not have a "second bite of the apple". The only issues that will be before the court at the hearing are back pay, reinstatement and attorney's fees. It is not necessary to delay the hearing in order to review the trial transcript. Defendant also states that Plaintiff did not timely and properly provide certain evidence at issue at trial; strangely enough no motion has ever been filed to compel the evidence. However, Plaintiff is not aware of any evidence in issue and Defendant has not stated to Plaintiff what the evidence at issue is. As the trial is over and all evidence has been submitted that can be submitted, it puzzles Plaintiff as to what evidence Defendant is referring to. That notwithstanding, Plaintiff believes that any issues that Defendant has with evidence can be addressed before Ms. Chynoweth goes on vacation so that there would be no issue. Prolonging the final judgment is prejudicial to Plaintiff as he has waited for resolution for almost six years. He has suffered through numerous continuances and delays. Plaintiff has tried to negotiate with Defendant in good faith to no avail. Plaintiff is further prejudiced as he and his wife have already rearranged their job schedules to

22

attend the hearing on September 24, 2007. Plaintiff was required to rearrange the
23

schedules of five (5) managers in order to take the time off for the hearing. Additionally,
24

Plaintiff and his wife have already arranged for a babysitter for their young children and
25

made their travel arrangements.
2

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 190

Filed 09/12/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Finally 45 minutes for this hearing is more than enough time. The court has heard the testimony and the equitable remedies are set forth under the guidelines of Title VII. The Court can determine the equitable remedies within the 45 minute period. Anything more unnecessarily takes up judicial time and resources that could put to a better use. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court deny Defendant's motion to continue the hearing.

Dated this 12th day of September, 2007

s/Rosval A. Patterson Rosval A. Patterson 777 E. Thomas Rd. #210 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Attorney for the Plaintiff

3

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 190

Filed 09/12/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 12th of September, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing for the following CM/ECF registrants: Suzanne M Chynoweth at [email protected] A copy of this document was provided by maile to: The Honorable Judge Mary H. Murguia United States District Court 401 West Washington Courtroom 525 Phoenix, AZ 85003

By:

s/Stephanie Coulter Stephanie Coulter

4

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 190

Filed 09/12/2007

Page 4 of 4