Rutenschroer v. Starr Seigle Communications, Inc, Civ.05-00364 ACK/BMK.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. Civ.05-00364 ACK/BMK.,Civ.05-00364 ACK/BMK.
• Citation: 484 F.Supp.2d 1144
• Parties: Kathryn L. RUTENSCHROER, Plaintiff, v. STARR SEIGLE COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED dba QMark, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

484 F.Supp.2d 1144

Kathryn L. RUTENSCHROER, Plaintiff, v.STARR SEIGLE COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED dba QMark, Defendant.

No. Civ.05-00364 ACK/BMK.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

June 29, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kathryn L. Rutenschroer, Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Bruce H. Wakuzawa, Shannon M.I. Lau, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KAY, Senior District Judge.

BACKGROUND

Kathryn L. Rutenschroer("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, alleged in her original Complaint that she suffered employment discrimination as an employee of Starr Seigle Communications, Inc. dba QMark (hereafter "Starr Seigle" or "Defendant") in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status.Specifically, she pled that she was subjected to disparate treatment in that Defendant unlawfully failed to promote her and terminated her.

On February 6, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal and Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and a Motion for Summary Judgment.Defendant also filed a Concise Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment("Motion for Summary Judgment CSF").On February 15, 2006, Defendant filed a First Amended Declaration of Barbara Ankersmit, the President of QMark Research and Polling, a division of Starr Seigle, along with eight exhibits.

On May 15, 2006, Plaintiff submitted an Answer/Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Judgment on the Pleadings ("Opposition").Attached to the Opposition are Plaintiff's Affidavit regarding her employment experience ("Affidavit 1"), Plaintiff's Affidavit regarding administrative procedures ("Affidavit 2"), and nineteen exhibits.

On May 31, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal and postponing its ruling on Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment("May 31 Order").¹The Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding the failure to promote claim and religious discrimination claim.(May 31 Orderat 19-21).Accordingly, the Court dismissed those claims.However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint, Supplemental Opposition, and Concise Statement of Facts before ruling on Defendant's remaining motions.

On June 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, Supplemental Opposition to Defendant's Motion(s) for Summary Judgment ("Supplemental Opposition"), and Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs Objection to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment("Supplemental Opposition CSF").Plaintiffs Supplemental Opposition CSF does not expressly accept or reject Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment CSF as required by Local Rule 56.1.The Supplemental Opposition contains an Amendment to Affidavit of Kathryn Rutenschroer regarding her employment experience ("Affidavit 3").(SeeSupplemental Opposition, Ex. 3).Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Supplemental Opposition on June 22, 2006("Additional Reply").The parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on Defendant's remaining motions on June 26, 2006.

STANDARD

I.Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)("Rule 12(c)") states, "[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings."If procedural defects are asserted in a Rule 12(c) motion, the district court will apply the same standards for granting the appropriate relief or denying the motion as it would have employed had the motion been brought prior to the defendant's answer under Rules 12(b)(1),12(b)(6),12(b)(7), or 12(f).See5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1367 (3d ed.2004).Thus, "if a party raises an issue as to the court's subject matter jurisdiction on a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, the district judge will treat the motion as if it had been brought under Rule 12(b)(1)."Id.;see alsoCollins v. Bolton,287 F.Supp. 393, 396(N.D.Ill.1968)("Since defendant alleges only jurisdictional grounds for dismissal, the proper course is to consider the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] as one to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.");Engleson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co.,1988 WL 332944 *2 n. 1(D.Mont.1988)("Because the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] raises only subject matter jurisdictional issues, the court treats the motion as one requesting dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction").

When Rule 12(c) is used to raise the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the standard governing the Rule 12(c)motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.SeeMcGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co.,845 F.2d 802, 810(9th Cir.1988);Luzon v. Atlas Ins. Agency, Inc.,284 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1262(D.Haw.2003).As a result, a motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim may be granted "`only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations.'"McGlinchy,845 F.2d at 810(quotingHishon v. King & Spalding,467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59(1984)).Thus, "[a] judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co.,132 F.3d 526, 528(9th Cir.1997)(citingMcGann v. Ernst & Young,102 F.3d 390, 392(9th Cir.1996))."Not only must the court accept all material allegations in the complaint as true, but the complaint must be construed, and all doubts resolved, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."McGlinchy,845 F.2d at 810.

II.Motion for Summary Judgment

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).Summary judgment is therefore appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."²Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c).

"A fact is `material' when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case.A genuine issue of material fact arises if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'"<sup>3</sup>Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Say. Ass'n,310 F.3d 1188, 1194(9th Cir.2002)(quotingUnion Sch. Dist. v. Smith,15 F.3d 1519, 1523(9th Cir.1994))(internal citations omitted).Conversely where the evidence "could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'"Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986)(quotingFirst Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co.,391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569(1968)).

The moving party has the burden of persuading the court as to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.Celotex,477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.The moving party may do so with affirmative evidence or by "showing' — that is pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548.All evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.See, e.g., T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n,809 F.2d 626, 630-31(9th Cir.1987).So, too, the court's role is not to make credibility assessments.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).Accordingly, if "reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence," summary judgment will be denied.Id. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Once the moving party satisfies its burden, however, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or "metaphysical doubt" about a material issue of fact precludes summary judgment.SeeCelotex,477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548;Matsushita Elec.,475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348;Cal. Arch. Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,818 F.2d 1466, 1468(9th Cir.1987).Nor will uncorroborated allegations and "self-serving testimony" create a genuine issue of material fact.Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,281 F.3d 1054, 1061(9th Cir.2002);see alsoT.W. Elec. Serv.,809 F.2d at 630.The nonmoving party must instead set forth "significant probative evidence" in support.T.W. Elec. Serv.,809 F.2d at 630.Summary judgment will thus be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial.⁴SeeCelotex,477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

III.Special Considerations Regarding a Pro Se Litigant

When a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the pleadings must be read more liberally than pleadings drafted by counsel.Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652(1972);Eldridge v. Block,832 F.2d 1132, 1137(9th Cir.1987).However, "a pro se litigant is not excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements."American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst,227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08(9th Cir.2000)(citations omitted).Before a district court may dismiss a pro se complaint, the court must provide the pro se litigant with notice of the deficiencies of the complaint...