Marilyn Hall Patel Fmla Oracle Corporation

7/29/2019 Marilyn Hall Patel Fmla Oracle Corporation

1/34

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT R E r * l M E DMOLLY c DWYER CLERKU.s. CQRTOFAPEALSJUN 2 i 2222

Ashit ZinzuwadiaAppellantFILEDYCOKWQD DATS wrwth Cir.Case No. 10-15002

District Court Case No. 06-6702VS.Oracle ComorationAppellee APPELLANT'S INFORMAL BRIEFJurisdictiona. Timeliness of Appeal'

(I) Date of entry of judgment or orderof lower court: November 16, 2009(ii) Date of service of any motion made afterjudgment(other than for fees and costs): January 7, 2010(iii) Date of entry of order deciding motion ; April 22, 2010(iv) Date notice of appeal filed ; December 14, 2009(v) For prisoners, date you gave notice of appealto prison authorities: - Not Applicable -IF POSSIBLE PLEASE ATTACH ONE COPY OF EACH OF THEFOLLOWINY:The order from which you are appealingThe district court's entry of judgmentThe district court docket sheet

Case: 10-15002 06/04/2010 ID: 7377421 DktEntry: 11 Page: 1 of 34 (1 of


2/34

Case No. 10-15002 Page

2. What are the facts of your case?1 was employed by Oracle Comoration from October 14, l 996 to September 29, 2004as a software engineer. Ptlrsuant to my application on the recommendation of thedoctor's at Lpcl-l/stanford Hospital, Oracle granted intermittent leave tmder the FamilyMedical Leave Act CGFMLA'') and the Califomia Fnmily lkights Act CCFRA''), for thetime period from March 8, 2004 to July 8, 2004 in order to permit me to care for myspouse's serious medical conditions, pnmely her pregnancy and periodic gallstoneattacks. Pursuant to my further application therefore in or about July, 2004, Oracleextended my intermittent FMLA/CFRA leave to October 29, 2004. 1 utilized myintermittent leave by taking time off work as needed to assist and care for my spouse andher duties in cormection with her serious medical conditions. In late August, 2004, mysupervisor expressed displeasure at my absences from work ptlrsuant to my intermittentleave under F'MLA/CFPXA and on September 29, 2004., Oracle terminated my job ofalmost 8 years while 1 was on FMLA leave causing tremendous emotional, physical andfinancial stress on my young family.

3. What did you ask the district court to do (for exnmple, award damages, giveinjunctive relief, etc.)?In the complaint that was tiled with the district court involving violation of the FamilyMedical Leave Act by Oracle Comoration, a trial by jury was requested.



3/34

Case No. 10-15002 PageState the claim or claims you raised at the district court.Oracle Corporation violated the Fnmily Medical Leave Act by the following actions:Oracle Corporation reprimanded my work while I was on FMLA leaveOracle Comoration issued an adverse evaluation, denied promotion, counted absencesunder an attendance control policy while I was on FMLA leave.Oracle Corporation terminated my job of about 8 years while I was on FMLA leave

What issues are you raising on appeal?Tllis appeal has come to being as I was not allowed to respond to state the case details asper my response to summary judgment and the cmse was decided on a disqualitkationbasis and not on its actual merits. Therefore, this appeal is not about the actual case itselfbut the case proceedings that happened on the day of dismissal and the misleading eventsthat 1ed to it.

5.

The Judge never instructed me that l had to respond to the summary judgment onNovember 16, 2009. lt is a fact that I had no knowledge prior to the hearing onNovember l 6, 2009 that I had to respond to the summary judgment by myself.Therefore, I was denied to state the actual facts of the case as I was denied to respond tomotion of summary judgment. In this appeal it not so much as about the facts of the caseas it is about the proceedings of the case and how the case was dismissed for lack ofresponse to summary judgment and not per the case details. Had the Judge actually toldme as I was being instructed specifically by her at each and every hearing since January



4/34

Case No. 10-15002 Page 42008, it is without any dispute that I would have responded. I was conveyed by theJudge's order in July 2009 that the VLSP program under the Federal Pro Bono Projectwould find an attorney to represent me to write the response to sllmmary judgment and soI was 1ed to believe that? indeed that was the case.At the second last hearing in the district court on September 29, 2009, I conveyed to theJudge that the Voluntary Legal Services Program (VLSP) at the Federal Courthouse hadnot yet fotmd an attomey but was still actively in the process of looking for an attorney torepresent me as per the Judge's order of July 9, 2009 passing the order thereby instructingthe VLSP program to ;nd an attorney as per the Federal Pro Bono Project. (see attachedorder - Exhibit B)At that heming on September 29, 2009, no further court date was set by the Judge and nofurther specific instructions were given to me. 1 did not get any court notice for the nexthearing or for any other pumose as I had always got in the past. In fact after the hearing,on October 9, 2009, Ms. Jennifer Greengold - Supervising Attorney of the VLSP programdid confirm to attorney James Braden of the Braden Law Firm that the VLSP progrnmwas still looking for an attorney to represent me. Mr. Braden was interested inrepresenting me via the Federal Pro Bono Project but she conveyed to him that his firmwas not eligible for the program nevertheless; the program is still actively looking for anattomey to represent me.For the fact, 1 met Ms. Jermifer Greengold again on November 13, 2009 at the VLSPprogram at the Federal Courthouse and she pulled up the internet case records for mycase and she mentioned to me that the VLSP progrnm in tlnding it hard to find anattorney to represent me due to the bad economy wherein big firms are not actively



5/34

Page 5Case No. 10-15002participating in the progrnm and also due to the fact that - the firms which arepmicipating in the VLSP program - more or less have a contlict with OracleComoration. She further consoled me that not to lose hope as she still has about twoattomeys on her list whom she shall try to bring them abroad. As it stands, on November13, 2009 even she had no inkling at a11 - even after looking at the internet case records -that the response to summaryjudgment is due in tlzree days on November 16, 2009! Itneeds to be said that if even she did not know that the response was due in three days,then how was I to know about it at all - and that too that 1 myself had to do it and notthrough the VLSP attorney which had been the case a1l along since July 2009. After theJudge dismissed the case on November 16, 2009, 1 again met Ms. Jennifer Greengold atthe VLSP centre and she herself was shocked that what'?! She mentioned that fact thatshe had no knowledge that the summaryjudgment was due on November 16, 2009otherwise she would have definitely filed some form of some sort for an extension, etcwhen I had met her for quite a while regarding the case and finding an attorney onNovember 13, 2009. She expressed deep shock that how did this ever happen? After all,she again expressed the smme thoughts on November 18, 2009 when again Imet her at the VLSP center that she had no knowledge that the response to summaryjudgment was due and that too by myself. She further clarified that on November 13,2009 when she met me, the VLSP program wms still actively looking for an attorney asper the Judge's order of July 2009 and they had not received any indication or order f'omthe Judge othemise to abandon their efforts. She also expressed further along that suchan action was detinitely different from the position the Judge had taken in the past whenthe Judge had stayed the summm'y judgment or given an order to the plaintiff to file foran extension through VLSP because the plaintiff did not have an attorney to rtpresenthim.



6/34

Case No. 10-15002 Page 6Al1 1 ask now is that I be allowed to state the facts of the case. After going through theconfusion of the Judge's order of Federal Pro Bono attorney to represent me as explainedabove, ljust want to be simple and write and present the facts myself as they happenedin plain Englishjust as 1 had indicated earlier to the Judge in the district court to 1et merepresent myself but she had denied it in 2008. Even in the finaljudgment as entered onMarch 18, 2010, it was omitted that as per the Judge's orders, 1 had responded no lessthen three times on different occasions verbally and in miting to the opposition'sinterrogatories. The Judge also omitted from this final judgment the detailed fact that asper her order on July 13, 2009, VLSP was instructed to find an attorney specifically torepresent me for limited-scope for responding the motion to summary judgment as at thattime it was clearly visible that the Judge did not think that 1 was able to represent myselfProse. And from then on, VLSP was entrusted with the task of finding counsel albeit forlimited scope for the sole purpose of responding to sllmmm.y judgment from the legalfirms who participate in the Federal Pro Bono Project.1 was employed by Oracle Comoration for about eight years until myjob was terminatedtmlawfully while I was on FMLA leave. Due to the action of the district Judge, I was notgiven a chance to state the facts of the case by way of responding to the summaryjudgment despite several pleadings by me at the hearing. Therefore this case was decidedon some sort of logistics and technicality and not on the basis of the Truth - the actualcase events.I therefore kindly request the Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court's decisionand remand this case back to the District Court. There, I shall have to defend the motionof summaryjudgment as it was before. 1 am confident that given a honest chance to



7/34

Page 7Case No. 10-15002respond, 1 shall be able to do so as per the facts - wherein which the case shall be decidedas per trial on the basis of The Truth and not on a technicality basis as it is now. Aherall, Truth has no expiration date.

6. Did you present a1l these issues to the district court?Yes If not, why?Yesmo

What law supports these issues on appeal? (You may, but need not, refer to casesand statutes.)* Judge's order as per 7/13/2009 approving the VLSP program to refer me to theFederal Pro Bono Project in order to tind an attorney for me in order to respond tothe motion of summaryjudgment was still in place at the time of dismissal. In

7.

fact, the VLSP progrnm even confinned that they were still in the process offinding the attorney. Cleady it was indicated that the prospective attorney asappointed by the VLSP program shall answer to the response to summaryjudgment and not me. If l had know'n that there was a tparallel stream'' thatVLSP appointed attorney shall respond to this sllmmary judgment and l wassupposed to do the same by myself at the same time, I would have done so - noquestions asked - for I had put tremendous time, effort and due diligence to attendand adhere to all CMCS since January 2008. This confusion definitely played itspart leading to the abject dismissal without any waming/notice of any sort.

* No court notice was given to me that a hearing is being set on November 16, 2009and that if 1 do not respond to it, the case shall be dismissed. Previously 1 wasalways given notice of hearings, etc via U.S. Mail but not in this matter.



8/34

Case No. 10-15002 Page 8Therefore, I was unaware of such a hearing and even the VLSP supervisingattorney was not knowing about this hearing and such when l met her onNovember 13, 2009

* l was therefore denied the tight to state facts of the case events as they happened.l have suffered deeply due to this job loss. And the fact that this case was not evenheard on the basis of the facts and misconduct of Oracle Corporation who violatedFMLA law seems abslzrd and plain unjust.

* From November 16, 2009 to March 18, 2010, the Judge took 120 days in writingthe final judgment but despite several pleadings by me detailing the prevailingconfusion, I was not allowed to submit my response to summaryjudgment.Do you have any other cases pending in this court? If so, give the name and docketnllmber of each case.No

9. Have you filed any previous cases which have been decided by this court? If so,give the name and docket n'lmber of each case.No



9/34

Case No. 10-1500210. For prisoners, did you exhaust al1 administrative remedies for each claim prior tofiling your complaint in the district court?Not Applicable

Page 9

Ashit ZinzuwadiaNAME

- - v r - = > NSIGNATURE

4385 Oakridge Drive,Tracy. CA 95377ADDRESS06/03/2010DATE



10/34

Case No: 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page l

Case No : 10-15002Ashit Zinzuwadia Vs Oracle CorporationAttachment to Opening Brief(Attachment : Pages 1 To 21)

Opening Brief Attachment



11/34

Case No: 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 2

ne case proceedings are portrayed below as they happened in the district court. Irequest this court of appeals to send this case back to the district court where 1 shallrepresent myself and submit a1l necessary responses, motions, etc. Let this case bedecided on the actual basis of the ttviolation of FMLA rights'' as they transpired in 2004and not on a trip up on logistical and procedural bmsis. May Truth prevail.

Case Proceedings as they happened:By January 2008, it was absolutely clear due to overwhelming evidence that the attorneywho was representing me - Mr. Michael Adams - was brought out by the opposingcounsel and was therefore acting on their behalf and working against me. 1 therefore

exhibit-A jt was better that 1 representrequested him to relieve himself from the case asmyself rather have him damaging the case on a day to day bmsis up to a point of no repairpossible. At that time, l informed the Judge that I do not wish for this attomey to furtherrepresent me so as to minimize the damage done by him. But the Judge acted against myrequest and imposed this attorney on the case fully knowing that he had acted against hisown client. As a result, this attorney who had been fully brought out by the opposingcouncil in the course of the next few months, damaged the case even more by issuingderogatory CMC statements against me ghe is writing against his own client), faking thedepositions, not calling the persons directly associated with the case, etc. Even in




12/34

Case No: 10-15002mediation, the mediator Catherine Yanni was shocked that this attorney had never done

Page 3pening BriefAttachment

the ground work for the mediation by not even holding a meeting with his client norhaving a demand letter nor even discussing basic points and fqgures. Basically he walkedinto mediation without any sort of any groundwork thereby making it totally without anypupose except to work against the client and as a consequence, mediation failed.

Arotmd October 2008, I pleaded to the Judge that why is the attomey being allowed towalk away from the case now after causing irreparable damage to the case when in fact Ihad asked for the same in January 2008 but was imposed upon to accept and retain him asmy attomey when in fact by his actions, it was clear that he was working against me.

I obeyed the Judge and submitted myself to the VLSP program in February 2009 asinstructed by the court and explained the situation there. I met with a law firm suggestedby the SF Bar Association but it was clear that they were asking about $30,000 even torespond to the summary Judgment. They made it clear that the previous attomey had infact misrepresented me in the case and done the case a lot of dnmage and therefore thecosts associated. Also, they mentioned that had they been approached by the SF Bar inJanuary 2008 when the case was in its earlier stages before opposition discovery andmediation, it would have been very easy for them or for any other 1aw firm in fact tojump into the case and move it forward but now the price tag was much higher.At the next CMC 1 conveyed this information to the Judge and 1 was instructed to submitto the VLSP progrnm and fill the application to find counsel for limited for responding to




13/34

Case No: 10-15002summary judgment. Clearly, the Judge thought that it was beyond me to tind a responseto the summary judgment. The application was duly submitted in June 2009 and the

Opening BriefAttachment Page 4

exhibit-B uri tjw whole of July and August, I wasrder was approved on July 13,2009 . D ngin touch with the Supervising attorney Ms. Jennifer Greengold Healy - my point ofcontact - with the program regarding the status and got the infonnation that have yet totind cotmsel. Arotmd October 9, 2009, one of the attorneys whom I had contacted earliertold me that he was ready to be on bom'd provided the VLSP program concurs. His nameis Mr. James Braden of the Braden Eaw Group.He contacted the supervising attorneyMs. Jennifer Greengold Healy and told her that he was ready to represent me in this casebut Ms. Greengold Healy told him that he cnnnot do so since he does not qualify for theprogram. He also got the information from her that since July when the order waspassed, the VLSP program has not been able to find an attorney to represent the plaintiffas these things do take time.his conversation with Ms. Greengold Healy and it should not take so much time. I finallycontacted Ms. Greengold Healy and she conveyed to me that they have not yet been ableto find an attorney till yet! W-hen I do tinally find someone who is ready to represent me,

Mr. Braden clearly told me that something was fishy with

then the VLSP says that Mr. Braden does not qualify and therefore cnnnot represent meand yet in more than 90 days, they are tmable to find me an attorney. Upon pleading withMs. Greengold Healy at her office in September, she finally told me that the main reasonshe is unable to find someone yet to represent me albeit just for the cause of miting theresponse of sttmmary judgment, she told me that Oracle Corporation tthe Defendant' isevelywhere and all the tirms are afraid of going against them for they represent fumrepotential business. Also, due to the bad economy, the big firms which qualify for the




14/34

Case No: 10-15002Federal Pro Bono project simply do not have associates which can represent people like


you due to the bad economy hence the big firms do not simply have such persolmel tospare. 'rhis would be no problem in a healthy economy but during this dire time, it wasan uphill task. Still she mentioned that not to lose hope and she is still trying to findsomeone to write the response to sllmmary judgment She mentioned all these factsduring our meeting on November 13, 2009 at her office, She further mentioned that at nopoint ever the VLSPshould not loose hope and mention this to the Judge at the next CMC. At no point didshe mention that s'lmmal'y Judgment was due and my case would be dismissed. 1 havebeen getting notices through US Mail regarding the dates of the next CMC f'rom theClerk's ofice since I do not have access to the electronic computer records as attomeys

program has been defnitely been able to find an attorney but 1

do but for the November 16, 2009 CMC I did not get any notice as such. In fact, duringmy meeting with Ms. Greengolds she mentioned that the next CMC was on November16, 2009 and she advised me that I should inform the Judge that the VLSP centre has yetto tind an attorney but they are still in the process of finding one.

- Case Time Line ofEvents on Next Page -




15/34

Case No: 10-15002 Opening BriqfAttachment Page 6

Important Case Timeline of Events :Date Event Deoils OutcomeJanuary 2008 CMC : 1 rmuest the Judge rules that irrespedive of whatJudge that as per happened, Iet bygones be bygones andoverwhelming evidence, instruds me to Iet my attorney representmy attorney has been me against my wishesbought out by theopposing party, I beallowed to representmyselfFebruary - May Mock Depositions taken, It is substantiated that my attorney is2008 Oracle HR and Matrix working ajainst his own client due to secretCorp Ecompany in charge conversatlon overheard by me and his nonof Oracle FMLA Ieaves) committal to depositions and mediation -denies to show up for even Catherine Yanni is shocked with hisdepositions. Attorney Iack of preparationshows up at mediationwithout any soQ ofdemand letter or anypreparationJuly 2008 CMC : Judge rules that Attorney fails to hand over the case files formy attorney cannot be over a month to prospedive Iaw offices.relleved yet and he needsto co-operate in finding

replacement counselAugust 2008 Attorney does not Even Mr. Christopher Dolan of Dolan Lawhandover case fiies Group concurs that attorney Mr. Adams hasno right to hold my case files hostageNovember - CMC : Opposition files for Judge orders me to continue Iooking forDecember 2008 summary Judgment replacement attorney as I cannot representmyself. Law Firms are interested but arecharging $25,000 for response to summaryjudgment. Due to financial hardship, myhome is in foreclosure and I cannot affordthe Iegal feesFebruary 2009 CMC : Judge instruds me I contad Ms. Greengold at the Federalto submit myself to VLSP Legal Help Center for helping me find anattorney with SF BarMarch - April 2009 SF Bar places me with Leigh Law Group expresses interest in caseLeigh Law Group - definitely case for decent settlement butrequire about $20,000 - $30,000 forresponding to summary judgment.However, 1 cannot afford Iegal fees




16/34

Case No: 10-15002May - June 2009 CMC : Judge instruds me 1 submit to VLSP Federal Pro Bono Projedto submit to VLSP projed and submit application for finding counseland orders me to go into for responding to summal judgment anda conference room at the am in touch with the supervising attorneycourt and answer about Ms. Jennifer Greengold at all times19 questions as asked by

the opposition withoutany representation on myside. I do so as neededdespite being barragedby Mr. Murphyrepresenting opposingcounsel. I am notallowed to ask even onequestion to theopposition : Was there anFMG or not ?July 2009 CMC : Judge approves VLSP center starts the task of snding anapplication attorney within the Federal Pro BonoProje to respond to summary JudgmentAugust 2009 CMC : Court sends notice VLSP s still looking for an attorney andthat CMC has been therefore informs the court that it ls still inpostponed till end of the process - cites difficulty in doing so dueSeptember 2009 to weak economy, conflid of interest withOracle Corp by interested Law firmsSeptember 2009 CMC : Jtldge instrucfq 1 lnform the Judge that VLSP is still lookingopposing counsel to for an attorney for responding to summarywithdraw summary judgment and cite the above reasons asjudgment due pending given to me by Ms. Greengold 'appointment of counselfor plaintiff throuqhVLSP. CMC is adjournedwith no date set for nextmeeting. Judge deniesme the right to ask onesimple juestion to theoppositlon: Was there anFMM or not ?Odober 2009 1 finally succeed in Mr. Braden talks to Ms. Greengold at thefinding attorney to VLSP center that he is willing to representrepresent through the me but Ms. Greengold informs him that hisprojed : Law Omces of firm does not qualify and tells him thatJames Braden VLSP is still looking for an attorney as perthe Judge's orders. 1 also mail theinterrogatories yet again one more time tothe opposition as per Judge's orders





17/34

Case No: 10-15002November 13, Meeting with Ms. Ms.Greengold informs me that she has2009 Greengold at the Federal gone through most of her Iist and she haslegal Help Center at the yet to place an attorney for this case butCourthouse not to Iose heart and she shall eventuallysucceed in finding the right attorney for thiscase. Mentions to me about the November16 CMC and tells me to inform the Judgeabout the current status in finding anattorne .November 16, 2009 Judge Iistens to me about I am aghast and shocked by the suddenmy meeting with Ms. development of events and 1 tell the JudgeGreengold yet somehow once again that I have submitted thetells me that I am on my interrogatories to the opposition in Odoberown and I have not and I was completely unaware that I wassubmitted the response on my own and that 1 had to submit theto summary judgment response to summaly judgment for myand therefore it is case would be dismissed on proceduralgranted grounds. Unfortunately,despite several

pleadings, the Judge ruled that the motionis granted against me and that I couldappeal.November 18, 2009 Meeting with Ms. Ms.Greengold is genuinely shocked at theGreengold at the Federal Judge's decision since the VLSP center wasLegal Help Center - VLSP still Iooking at finding an attorney and they-at the courthouse had not abandoned the attempt.She alsoexpresses shock that she did not know thatthe response to summary judgment wasdue by Nov 16 and acknowledged that shehad no such inclination of any sort in mymeeting with her on Nov 13 when sheherself was Iooking at the eledronic caserecords in her computer. She expressedher opinion that had she known about thisNov 16 deadline, she definitely would havefiled something on Nov 13 itself to be ingood standing but she had no inkling ofany sort otherwise. My question is that if aseasoned attorney - supervising attorney inthe caliber of Ms. Greengold had no inklingof such a deadline then definitely, I did noteven have an iota of knowledge that therewas a deadllne for submission for theresponse to summary judgment or else thecase would be dismissed.





18/34

Case No: 10-1 5002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 9At the CMC of November 16, 2009 what happened was total carnage: I mentioned to theJudge that I had mailed the interrogatories yet again to the opposition on October 9, 2009that I hadjust met with Ms. Greengold-Healy at the VLSP center on November 13, 2009and she had infonued me as above that they are still in the process of finding an attorneyand had cited the reasons of not yet finding an attorney is due to the big attorney firmswhich participate in the Federal Pro Bono project and their tGconflict of interest'' due toexisting and potential future business with Oracle Corporation and in general to the weakeconomy and thereby the shortage of associates at the attomey firms who are willing tospend their time on a pro-bono project case like this one. All of a sudden, the Judgetumed furious and was unwilling to listen to me any further and said that she was goingto grant the motion of summary judgment to the opposition.1 pleaded with her that I theVLSP center is still looking for an attomey and therefore a short time be given to findone in order that the newly appointed attorney may file a response to the motion ofsummary judgment. Al1 of a sudden she blrned personal and went way beyond the scopeof the case and scolded me and chided with terms of t&you are ...'' and so on.At this point, it was clearly a personal attack way beyond the realm gf the case. I pleadedwith the Judge to be patient since I did not even had an inkling that I was supposed towrite the response to the motion of summary judgment and that it was due on that day. Ialso pointed out the fact that order to tind counsel pro-bono was standing and that VLSPwas still trying to find an attorney to write the response to summary judgment for thesame and therefore, I had no indication whatsoever that I had to write it myself and thattoo on that day. I again re-iterated the fact that the Judge had deemed this case un-




19/34

Case No; 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 10represent able Prose in the fact of writing summary judgment earlier in the year andtherefore, I had been instructed al1 along to just listen to the Judge and not do anythingelse - I always followed what the Judge told me to do so - The Judge had deemed meinsufficient to respond to the summary judgment myself since the last 12 months or soand therefore the order to tind an attorney pro-bono was granted and how come nowwithout any chance to fully represent myself; my case is about to get dismissed and thattoo on procedural grounds of non-response. I further pleaded that since, now that l amaware that the Judge has changed from her previous stance of not letting me representmyself Prose and his refusing to grant any further time to VLSP to tind an attorney, I begiven at least 7 days - time till next Monday - to write the response to summaryjudgmentin my own words - the facts of the case - but the Judge flatly denied it. As a result thiscase never got a chance to be heard at all and was dismissed on procedmal basis.

At times, it was more than a Judge talking to a plaintiff, like more of an elder talking to ayounger personal , a teacher - student or mother - son relationship. My Indianess wasquestioned at many a time in the CMCS and even the persormel downstairs wouldcomment - Hey you're Indian is Judge Patel related to you? Yes at times, even I wassurprised at the relaxed policies but when it came to cnmch time, it was utter carnage,beyond the scope of the case and was a total assassination of my character professionaland personal much like an elder of the family chiding and scolding the young teenager.

This case is very simple and plain and straightfomard and I have full confidence that ifthe Appeals court grants in my favor, this case can easily overcome summaryjudgment




20/34

Case No: 10-15002in the District Court even with Prose and move towards a trial where Justice can finally

Opening BriefAttachment Page l 1

be shown for there is no expiration date for the Truth.




21/34

Case No: l 0- l 5002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 12Facts of the Case:1, Ashit Zinzuwadia - Plaintiff - was hired by Oracle Comoration in October 1996 aher 1was approached by several Oracle Managers in Slzmmer 1996 from EMC Corporation,Massachusetts and his offer was approved by no less than the CEO of Oracle CorporationMr. Lawrence Ellison.Arotmd March 2004, my spouse was diagnosed as a lligh risk pregnancy with gallstonesand it was recommended by the staff at the Stanford/lapcl'l hospital that since I was theprimary caretaker for the wife, I should apply and take FMLA leave in order to attend tomy wife as when needed. After that, intermittent FMLA leave was granted and Icontinued as usual at work with full regularity and no issues whatsoever at work in termsof performance and attendance. I was reporting to his manager Mr. Brian Stewart at thattime who was quite understanding with the delicate simation at hand. Around July 12,2004, when expected delivery date is within 2 days for the baby and therefore, Iinfonued my manager that I need to attend to his wife and therefore I shall be workingfrom home. Also, FMLA leave is extended until 10/29/2004 and Stanford duly faxes thepapers to Oracle. Mr. Brian Stewart has no problems with that and wishes me good luck.On July 14, 2009, baby is born and I announce the good news to the group and informBrian that I shall be working from home to take care of wife and baby who hadjaundice.I continue to work from home with Brian's permission in from July 12, 2004 thzough the3rd week of August 2004 and nm always accessible via Oracle email, cell phone and AOL

rd k of August 2004,I report physically back to worknstant MessengerAround the 3 wee




22/34

Case No: 10-15002at Oracle Headquarters and am informed that I am to be transferred to another grouparound October 2004. I am also informed that I am no longer reporting to Brian Stewart


and my new manager is Stevt Zellmer. At that time, I nm chided for taking FMLA leaveand the leave itself is questioned and I am told that my job is injeopardy and I have takenillegal leave and was working from home without anybody's permission. Uponpresenting the facts and crosschecking with Brian Stewarts it comes of light of a1lpersormel involved that indeed Brian Stewart has approved my working from home andthat my FMLA leave was indeed in place with the required paperwork till 10/29/2004.At that time, I am instructed to fill timesheets for the days on which I took FMLA leavein July & August 2004. I fill the timesheets and accotmt for the 12 FMLA days that I hadtaken as per Steve Zellmer's - my manager's request. I also inform Steve that I am stillon FMLA leave till 10/29/2004 and due to the simation at home, l anticipate takingFMLA leave in September also while keeping in mind that this was probably my lastmonth in this group as I was approved for transfer to another group within Oracle at thebeginning of October 2004. In September 2004, 1 contacted my manager Steve Zellmera11 the time via email and or phone calls totaling about 15-20 times and conveyed to himthat I was on FMLA leave and therefore would not be coming to work. Steve Zellmer noteven once responded to my emails or phone calls thereby misleading me that everything

th k f August and all myas a11 right since no work was assigned to me after the 4 wee otasks had been completed and l was schedule to start work in the new group in the 1Stweek of October 2004. Not only that, Steve Zellmer withheld the facts from Oracle HRthat I was in touch with him throughout the month of September and even did not submitmy timesheets to Oracle HR that l had given to him in August 2004.




23/34


This is critical because Oracle HR contend that they never got any timesheets from meand this wms brought to light only in the Oracle Discovery in this case that this is howSteve Zellmer behaved and tied in words and action to Oracle HR by withholding thetimesheets for the FMLA days that I had taken in July-August and again lying to OracleHR that I had not contacted him in the final days leading to the job termination. Tilltoday, despite several requests, Oracle refuses to provide with the timesheets submittedby the Plaintiff to Steve Zellmer thereby withholding a key piece of evidence. MrSteveZellmer has confessed in his deposition that Yefailed to contact the Plaint#even once byreplying to the Plaintiffs constant mails, phone calls , AOL Instant Messenger orothemise despite the Plaintiff contacting him several times. In factMr. Steve Zellmerknew that layoffs were plnnned in the group and the jobs were being outsourced to lndiaand therefore in all possibility it served him better to terminate the job of an employee onFMLA on wrongful and false grotmds versus an expensive layoff considering thePlaintiff was a veteran of Oracle Coporation of about 8 years. The cost analysis of alayoff versus termination of ob is highly cnzcial point since the Plaintiff had sufferedpermanent injury while working at Oracle Corporation in 1999 and highly specializedmultiple doctors had ruled his injury as permanent and stationary and thus was costingOracle Corporation. The layoff evidence is clear at hand for in fact about 45 days sincethe Plaintiffs job termination, at least two or more employees had been laid off from thegroup and the jobs had been transferred to India and the group was disbanded in the nameof re-organization If necessary at least one ex-oracle employee who was laid off duringthat time from the snme group can testify if needed.




24/34


Had Mr. Steve Zellmer conveyed the truth te Oracle Human Resources and submitted thePlaintiff s timesheets (given to Mr. Steve Zellmer by the Plaintiff himself in-person) toOracle HR, it is without dispute that Oracle HR would not have terminated Plaintiffs jobafter about 8 years at Oracle and thereby putting his infant and irmocent fnmily in such afinancial and emotional hardsllip due to suddenjob loss of the sole fnmily breadwinner.




25/34

Case No: 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 16Exhibit's A. B

lblxhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .ACopy of letter informing the attomey at the onset of the case that due to his inefGcientbehavior, it wms better that he relieve himself at the beginning of January 2008 when notmuch damage was done by him to the case. After holding detailed discussions withseveral prominent attorney tirms of the San Francisco Bay Area in 2008-2009 regardingthe case, it became apparent that had the Judge allowed the previous attorney to quit atthat time - when the case was in its beginnings - it would have been much easier for newprospective attomeys to come on board when no opposition depositions or discovery wasdone and tht timeline was much before mediation. Alas, against my wishes, the districtcourt Judge imposed the inefficiencies of the attorney - Mr. Michael Adams on this caseat the CMC of January 2008 and the damage done to the case continued. Depositions ofkey persormel of Matrix Comoration - persormel who approved the FMLA leave - andOracle HR were not taken and non-existent planning and methodology was shown atmediation. Even after that, the attorney did not hand over the case files for about 120days. Clearly the dnmage was irreparable.




26/34

January 08, 2008To.Michael E. Adams702 Marshall StreetSuite 300Redwood City, CA 94063 Subject: Zinzuwadia Vs Oracle CorporationMr. Adams:As per our discussion, effective immediately you will no Ionger be representing my interests in this casedtle to Iack of resources and manpower at your end plus complete Iack of communication at one and aIlcrucial junctures since the inception of the case,Thanking youAshit Zinzuwadia



27/34





28/34


llxlfbit .......................13Copy of the Judge's order pmssing the order to reftr me to the VLSP progrnm at theFederal Courthouse as per the Federal Pro Bono Project in order to find an attorney torepresent me in the case for the exclusive purpose of responding to summary judgment.An attorney was to be appointed in order to respond to sllmmary judgment as per theorder. Against this order, the Judge's actions on November 16, 2009 dismissing the caseas per non-response to the summary judgment was against the very core of the Judge'sown order to appoint an attorney from the VLSP program and is inexplicable.




29/34

Case No; 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 19




30/34

Case No: l0- l 5002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 20




31/34

C* 3:06-cv-06702-MHP Document@6 FiIed0@/;K09 Pagel of 2.4' v.t'k .. :..g4 ; , .. ...$' .* J.;y... .r ..ji3zei, . . xs .:.Ashit zinzpwadia g g z835 Onkndge Drive *z+x:i ' 4, '' : '2 Tmcy, Califomia 95377 R&;?; . '.- -*C.1/ htj. (....'-TL. -jrs.Px Se c. ,2pl

4,5 UNITED STATES DISX W COURTNORTM M DISTRICT OF CAT,IFORNIA67 ) Case Number: CV-06-06702 MHP8 ASHIT ZINZUWADIA, )) n OQBER REFEQRING9 Plainti ) LITIGANT TO FEDERAI, PRO BONO) PROJECT AND STAYING10 vs. ) PROGEDINGS PENDING

) APPOINTMENT OF LIMITED-KOPE1 URACLB CORPORATION et a1, ) COUNSEL)12 Defendant. ) Judge Melyn Hall Patel)314 ne Plaintil having requested and being in need of colmnel to assist him in this matte15 and good and just call- appeHng, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiF Ashit Zinnxwadi16 qull be mferred to the Fedeml Pro Bono Project for appoineent of limited-scope legal counse17 in the mnnner set forth below:1 819 1. ne clerk shall fo-rd to the Volunteer Lqal SeMces Program of the Bar Associatio20 of San F=cisco IGVLSP'') two (2) copies of the collrt 5le with a notice of referral of th21 case pursllnnt to the guidelines of the Federal Pro Bono Project for refeaal to a voluntee22 attomey.2324 2. Upon being notised by VLSP that an attomey has been located to represent the Plainti/25 tI:M attomey shall be appointed as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter for the limite26 po ose of repxsenting him Oough the hearing on Defendut's pending Motion fo27 Sllmmary Judgment or until further order of the CoM.

(PROPOSEDI ORDER RE APPOINTMENT OF LIM. SCOPE COUNSEL, NO. 06-6702 MHP> *5 r . .. ..vp . t' : + 'Me < J.4.'.Q o . c ' 'C - 'P;'g+ '.ijllrft. qhk;,vt vkLi.$: J


32/34

Cxe3:06-cv-06702-MHP Document@; FiIed0@/;F09 Pagez of 2

l 3. Al1 proceedings in this action ax hereby stayed until foc weeks &om the date2 attomey is appointed to represent PlaintiFin thls adion.3

s DISTWCIT IS S0 ORDERED. W >%*- * eO5 p &* +6 Dated:7/13/2009 & SRED A so olmIT IS7 Hon. ug U.s. ' c pate! mia1yn Z.' lttdge V*Y' O9 + *w1 a lm a+ okl 1 ozsw lcx12

131415161718192021222324252627

(PROPOSED) ORDER RE APPOINTMENT OF LIM. SCOPE COUNSEL, N0. 06-6702 MHP



33/34

Case No: 10-15002 Opening BriefAttachment Page 2 lConclusion

This appeal is not so much based on the actual events of the case as they happened in2004 but on the case proceedings as they happened specitically on November 16,2009.As mentioned before, without any court notice of any sort of the hearing on November16, 2009 and without any notice or warning of case dismissal due to non response,suddenly, 1 was held as on the grounds of ttdisqualification'' or tttechnicality basis'' andsuddenly the case was dismissed. Despite several requests and pleas to the Judge on thatvery moment before the actual order that I be given a mere 7 days to submit the response,the Judge did not hear them thereby reducing this case and the associated tevents ofviolation of FMLA rights'' into a mere technicality basis and therefore the Truth about thecase was never allowed to come into light even after being grilled for about 13 hours ipthe depositions by the opposition.What would have been damaged had the district courtJudge just allowed me to respond as per my pleas ? Nothing at all. l would havepromptly responded, given the acmal case details - the truth - and the case would take thenatural path as per the outcome as per sllmmary judgment and my response and thatwould be fair and just. That is exactly what 1 am requesting now to the Appeals Court. 1sincerely request this Appeals Court to remand the case back to the district court where itshall be exactly at the same place wherein which I shall respond to summmyjudgmentand the case shall be decided on that basis - On its natural basis of the the Truth.




34/34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEv. Oracle Coporationase Name: Ashit Zinzuwadia

Case No.: 10-15002IMPORTANT: You must send a copy of ALL documents filed with the court andany attachments to cotmsel for ALL parties in tMs case. You must also file acertifcate of servie with this court telling us that you have done so. You may usethis certificate of service as a master copy, fill in the title of the document you aretiling and attach it at the back of each fillng with the court. Please list below thenames and addresses of the parties who were sent a copy of your document and thedates on which they were served. Be sure to sign the statement below. You mustattach a copy of the certificate of service to each of the copies and the copy you filewith the court.I certify that a copy of the openina biiefand attachment (Pages 1-2 1) was served, either in person or by mail, on the persons listedbelow.

m -SignatureNotary NOT required

William MurphyAddress

th j25 Bush Street,6 F oorSan Francisco, CA 94104Date Served6/3/2010


Documents

Marilyn Hall Patel Fmla Oracle Corporation