United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates,
L.L.C.'s (“PRA”) motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 31). Plaintiff Denise Hall filed a response (ECF No.
39), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 40).
initial matter, this court considers plaintiff's
assertion that there are three claims pending in this action:
(1) retaliation; (2) harassment; and (3) wrongful
termination. (ECF No. 39). The supposed second and third
claims are not included in the complaint and therefore are
not at issue in this case. Minor v. Fedex Office & Print
Servs., Inc., 182 F.Supp.3d 966, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
(“Plaintiff may not use his opposition to raise and
argue new allegations or claims not in the
complaint.”); see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats
Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000); (ECF No. 1).
a former legal collector who was employed by defendant,
initiated suit in this court on December 24, 2014. (ECF No.
1). Plaintiff's complaint alleges, under Nevada Revised
Statute (“NRS”) 613.330 et seq. and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that PRA
retaliated against plaintiff for her complaint to corporate
headquarters about the behavior of her operations manager,
Carla Moran, and for plaintiff's charge to the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). (Id.). Specifically, plaintiff
alleges that, after she submitted her corporate complaint
against Moran on June 21, 2012, plaintiff “was moved
off of Carla Moran's team and given a less desirable
schedule.” (ECF No. 1 at 4).
August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a formal charge of
discrimination with the EEOC. (Id.). Plaintiff
alleges that she thereafter “receiv[ed] written
disciplinary actions for alleged infractions she previously
had not been disciplined for” and was relocated to a
desk where she could be under greater scrutiny. (Id.
at 3-5). Plaintiff was eventually terminated on January 17,
motion, defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation under federal or
state law and has not overcome her burden to show that any
adverse employment action was the result of plaintiff's
protected conduct. (ECF No. 31).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims . . . .” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323- 24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, the court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for
summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it
must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial.” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden
Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, “[i]n such a case, the moving party has the
initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
of fact on each issue material to its case.”
contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the non-moving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the non-moving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the non-moving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159- 60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth
at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.