Cecala v. Newman
| Citation | 532 F.Supp.2d 1118 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.,CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW. |
| Parties | Renee CECALA, Plaintiff, v. David B. NEWMAN; Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, P.C., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Kraig J. Marton, David N. Farren, Jaburg & Wilk PC, Phoenix, AZ; for Plaintiff
Brian Holohan, Brian Holohan Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, foe Defendants.
Pending before the court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts, as amended ("DSOF") (Doc. ## 171, 172, 246); Plaintiffs Response and Statement of Facts, as amended ("PSOF") (Doc. ## 193, 188, 220); and Defendants' Reply (Doc. # 206).
Also before the court are Plaintiff's Notice of Filing (Doc. # 224) and Defendants' Motion to Strike Cecala Declaration and Elliot Supplemental Affidavit (Doc. # 227). The court has reviewed the parties' supplemental memoranda (Doc. ## 228, 229, 230) and the responses thereto (Doc. ## 236, 237, 238).
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the admissible evidence shows the following.
This is an action for legal malpractice arising out of an employment dispute between Plaintiff Renee Cecala ("Cecala") and her former employer, NationsBank ("Bank"), now Bank of America. Cecala began working for NationsBank in Charlotte, North Carolina in June 1994. (PSOF 19-20; DSOF Ex. 3, 4.) Cecala worked at various times in the capital markets, mortgage financing, and mortgage sales divisions of the Bank. (PSOF 19-20.)
Cecala contends that NationsBank discriminated against her because of her sex. (Id. at 20.) She "was not compensated fairly, compared to others similarly situated at the Bank, and at other like institutions," and was denied promotions and deprived of human resources by Bank management. (Id. at 20-23; Ex. 18 at 2.) Cecala believes that she "flourished and even fostered growth and prosperity within two distinct departments" despite the "woefully inadequate support and resources she received." (Id. Ex 18 at 2.) In addition to general underpayment and lack of resources, Cecala alleges that she was "victimized by sexual harassment [and] a hostile work environment" at NationsBank. (Doc. # 193 at 3; PSOF 23-24.) The Bank's "oppressive and hostile work environment ... caused her great physical and emotional distress." (Id. Ex. 18 at 2.)
From 1994 through 1996, Cecala lodged complaints with senior Bank management about "compensation, promotions, and resources," but NationsBank did not address her concerns. (Id. at 21.)
In January 1997, Cecala hired New York attorney David B. Newman of the law firm of Cooperman Levitt Winikoff Lester & Newman, P.C. ("Cooperman Levitt"), to represent her in negotiations with Nations-Bank. (Doc. # 171 at 3.) Newman sent a letter to the president of NationsBank Capital Markets on February 20, 1997, briefly describing Cecala's concerns and expressing his desire "to discuss this matter with you with the hope of resolving these issues short...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. City of Fresno
...whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–1133 (D.Ariz.2007). When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary judgme......
-
Cotta v. Cnty. of Kings, 1:13–cv–359–LJO–SMS.
...carries the ultimate burden of proof. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007) ; Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132 (D.Ariz.2007). If the movant will have the burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate, with affirmative evidence, that “no reasonabl......
-
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
...whether the legal issues are ones on which the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132–33 (D.Ariz.2007). If the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must carry its initial burden at summary judgment b......
-
Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist.
...carries the ultimate burden of proof. See Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir.2007); Cecala v. Newman, 532 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1132 (D.Ariz.2007). If the movant will have the burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate, with affirmative evidence,that “no reasonable ......