Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesmotiondiscriminationsustainedcivil procedurerelevance
defendantdamagesmotiondiscriminationsustainedcivil procedure

Related Cases

Garvey ex rel. Doe v. Unified School Dist. 262, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 2548332
View Case »
Wilson v. Lock Haven University, 474 Fed.Appx. 74, 282 Ed. Law Rep. 868
View Case »
Thurman v. Ice Palace, 36 Cal.App.2d 364, 97 P.2d 999
View Case »
B.L. by Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District, 289 F.Supp.3d 607, 353 Ed. Law Rep. 167
View Case »
Clark v. University of Oregon, 319 Or.App. 712, 512 P.3d 457, 404 Ed. Law Rep. 938
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lee v. U.S. Taekwondo Union, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 278692

Facts

Lee 'is not seeking damages on behalf of' his Taekwondo school. Opposition at 10. Instead, Lee is seeking only damages he has individually sustained.

Issue

Whether the defendants' motion to strike Lee's claim for damages related to his Taekwondo school should be granted.

Rule

Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, scheduling orders must be adhered to, and can only be modified upon a showing of good cause. A motion that seeks to strike a claim is considered a dispositive motion and must be filed within the established deadlines. Additionally, evidence relevant to a plaintiff's personal damages can be introduced even if it pertains to a corporate entity.

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires this court to enter scheduling orders limiting the time to file motions. Rule 16(b) states that such scheduling orders 'shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.'

Analysis

The court found that the defendants' motion to strike was untimely as it was filed after the deadline for dispositive motions. The court emphasized that the motion sought a dispositive ruling, which required adherence to the scheduling order. Furthermore, the court recognized that evidence regarding Lee's compensation from his Taekwondo school was pertinent to his personal damages, as his earnings were tied to the school's revenue.

The Ninth Circuit says that 'the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.'

Conclusion

The court denied the defendants' motion to strike Lee's claim for damages related to his Taekwondo school, affirming that the evidence was relevant to Lee's personal claims.

For the forgoing reasons, the motion is denied.

Who won?

Dae Sung Lee prevailed in this motion as the court denied the defendants' request to strike his claim for damages. The court reasoned that Lee was not seeking damages on behalf of his Taekwondo school but rather for personal losses he sustained due to the alleged racial discrimination. The court also highlighted the relevance of the school's financial information to Lee's personal damages, reinforcing the validity of his claims.

Dae Sung Lee prevailed in this motion as the court denied the defendants' request to strike his claim for damages. The court reasoned that Lee was not seeking damages on behalf of his Taekwondo school but rather for personal losses he sustained due to the alleged racial discrimination.

You must be