Case: EEOC v. Lucent Technologies

2:04-cv-08168 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Closed Date: July 27, 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only available documents, the allegations of discrimination are unknown. In February 2005 the case was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The court ordered the case to remain s…

The San Francisco District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Lucent Technologies, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2004. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California in January 2005. Because the dockets are the only available documents, the allegations of discrimination are unknown.

In February 2005 the case was stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The court ordered the case to remain stayed in October 2007. In December 2007, the parties were ordered to submit a joint status report every ninety days until the Supreme Court issued an order on the petition for certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The joint status report filed on June 17, 2009 reported that the holding in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen was adverse to the EEOC's position. As a result, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the case, which was ordered by Judge Maxine Chesney on July 27, 2009.

Summary Authors

Kevin Wilemon (5/23/2008)

Rachel Barr (1/4/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12030744/parties/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-lucent-technologies/


Judge(s)

Chesney, Maxine M. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Esparza-Cervantes, Elizabeth (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Chomiak, Sarah N (Illinois)

Dritsas, William James (California)

Hurley, Lawrence J. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

3:05-cv-00269

Docket [After Transfer to Northern District of California; DN 05-269]

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

July 27, 2009

July 27, 2009

Docket

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12030744/equal-employment-opportunity-commission-v-lucent-technologies/

Last updated April 5, 2025, 11:08 a.m.

ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Sept. 30, 2004

COMPLAINT against Defendant Lucent Technologies. (No Filing fee required) Jury Demanded, filed by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

RECAP
2 Sept. 30, 2004

CERTIFICATION of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)

RECAP
Sept. 30, 2004

20 Days Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery) 1 as to Defendant Lucent Technologies. (jp, )

Sept. 30, 2004

FAX number for Attorneys Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Marcia L Mitchell, Jonathan T Peck, William R Tamayo is 415-356-5657. (jp, )

3 Oct. 4, 2004

STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge R. G. Klausner: READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY; IT CONTROLS THIS CASE; Memoranda of Points and Authorities in support of or in opposition to motions shall not exceed 20 pages; replies shall not exceed 10 pages (see document for further details). (jp, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

RECAP
4 Nov. 3, 2004

NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Lucent Technologies -. (shb, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)

RECAP
5 Nov. 3, 2004

ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant Lucent Technologies -.(shb, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)

RECAP
Nov. 3, 2004

FAX number for Attorney William J Dritsas is 415-397-8549. (shb, )

6 Nov. 4, 2004

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge R. Gary Klausner that this matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on 1/3/2005 09:00 AM. The Conference will be held pursuant to FRCP 16(b). Counsel are ordered to file a joint statement providing a brief factual summary of the case including the claims being asserted. The parties are reminded for their obiligations to disclose information, confer on a discovery plan, [or disclose information and confer on a discovery plant not later than 21 days prior to the scheduling conference] and report to the Court, [or report to the Court not later than 14 days after they confer, with courtesy copies to the chambers of Judge Klausner], required by FRCP 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Failure to comply may lead to the imposition of sanctions. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)

RECAP
7 Nov. 9, 2004

APPLICATION AND ORDER of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case by Allegra R Rich for Lucent Technologies, designating William D. Dritsas as local counsel. Fee paid. Approved by Judge R. Gary Klausner.(bp, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

RECAP
8 Nov. 9, 2004

APPLICATION AND ORDER of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case by Sarah N Chomiak for Lucent Technologies, designating William J. Dritsas as local counsel. Fee paid. Approved by Judge R. Gary Klausner.(bp, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

RECAP
Nov. 9, 2004

FAX number for Attorney Allegra R Rich is 312-269-8869. (bp, )

9 Nov. 22, 2004

PROOF OF SERVICE filed by defendant Lucent Technologies re 7 Application and Order for PHV Attorney, 8 Application and Order for PHV Attorney, was served on 11/10/2004. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)

RECAP
10 Dec. 27, 2004

ORDER TO REASSIGN CASE due to self-recusal pursuant to Section 3.3 of General Order 224 by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Case transferred to the calendar of Judge Ronald S.W. Lew for all further proceedings. Case number now reads as CV 04-8168-RSWL(CTx).(stsh, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)

RECAP
11 Dec. 27, 2004

STIPULATION for a Change of Venue to the Northern District; Notice of Related Case; Request to Vacate Case Management Conference filed by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lodged Order. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

RECAP
12 Dec. 28, 2004

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS before Judge R. Gary Klausner: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER. The Scheduling Conference, presently on the Court calendar for 1/3/2005 at 09:00 AM is hereby CONTINUED to 1/24/2005 at 09:00 AM. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/29/2004)

RECAP
Dec. 28, 2004

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED re Proposed Order. Lodged 12/21/2004. (jp, )

13 Dec. 29, 2004

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT and ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The case management statement and proposed order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this order. In addition, the Court orders the 1/3/05 Case Management Conference is vacated. (mg, ) (Entered: 01/03/2005)

RECAP
14 Jan. 13, 2005

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS before Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: COUNSEL NOTIFIED. Case should have been entered JS-6 on the filing of the Joint Case Management Conference Statement. This case is now TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California. Entered 1/3/2005. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.)Court Reporter: Not Present. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)

RECAP
15 Jan. 19, 2005

NOTICE of Removal of Counsel filed by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

RECAP
Jan. 19, 2005

ANSWER to re 1 Complaint byLucent Technologies, Inc. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) SEE DOCKET NUMBER 1 ATTACHMENTS. (Entered: 01/20/2005)

PACER
Jan. 19, 2005

CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/19/2005) (Entered: 01/20/2005)

PACER
16 Jan. 24, 2005

Copy of transfer letter from USDC North District of California. Assigned their case number C 05-00269 MMC. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/25/2005)

RECAP
Feb. 11, 2005

Case Stayed (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2005) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

PACER
17 Oct. 22, 2007

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. Upon review of the parties' joint status report, it is ordered that: 1) this case remains stayed; and 2) the parties shall file a status report no later than December 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 22, 2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

PACER
Oct. 22, 2007

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 12/1/2007. Re 17 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 10/22/2007) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

PACER
19 Dec. 4, 2007

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. The parties shall file a joint status report every ninety days until such time as the Supreme Court issues an order on the Petition for Certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 3, 2007. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)

PACER
20 Feb. 15, 2008

ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 15, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2008) (Entered: 02/15/2008)

PACER
21 March 3, 2008

ORDER VACATING ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 3, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)

PACER
22 March 4, 2008

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 3/4/2008) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

PACER
23 March 5, 2008

JOINT STATUS REPORT; ORDER. The parties shall file a joint status report every ninety days pending the Supreme Court's ruling on the Petition for Certiorari in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 5, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2008) (Entered: 03/05/2008)

PACER
24 May 27, 2008

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Steinsapir, Kaye) (Filed on 5/27/2008) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

PACER
25 June 17, 2008

NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Unavailability of Counsel (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 6/17/2008) (Entered: 06/17/2008)

PACER
26 Sept. 2, 2008

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)

PACER
27 Sept. 9, 2008

ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF STAY. The action is stayed pending final disposition of AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than July 30, 2009 or thirty (30) days following the issuance of the Supreme Court's opinion in Hulteen, whichever is earlier. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 9, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)

PACER
Sept. 9, 2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: A Joint Status Report due by 7/30/2009. Re 27 Order (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 9/9/2008) (Entered: 09/10/2008)

PACER
28 Jan. 8, 2009

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL−−LOCAL RULE 7−12 by Lucent Technologies, Inc.. (Dritsas, William) (Filed on 1/8/2009) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

PACER
29 Jan. 14, 2009

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 14, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)

PACER
30 June 17, 2009

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 6/17/2009) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

PACER
31 June 25, 2009

ORDER APPROVING JOINT STATUS REPORT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 25, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2009) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

PACER
32 July 23, 2009

STIPULATION for Dismissal and Proposed Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 7/23/2009) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

PACER
33 July 27, 2009

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 27, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2009) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 30, 2004

Closing Date: July 27, 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Private Entity/Person

Lucent Technologies, Inc.

Case Details

Other Dockets:

Central District of California 2:04-cv-08168

Northern District of California 3:05-cv-00269

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Granted:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Treatment

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

Recommended Citation