Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

CINTAS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00281 JSW

AMENDED NOTICE OF

TENTATIVE RULING AND

QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON

EEOC’S MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SET FOR OCTOBER 14, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority. Except as expressly authorized below, the parties shall not file written

responses to the questions posed in this notice.

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 155 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS the EEOC’s motion to amend its complaint in

intervention. The parties shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

1. When did the conciliation process end in the Serrano action?

2. Are the claims in the Serrano action identical to the claims raised by Ms. Avalos

in this action? If not, what are the differences?

3. On September 6, 2005, Magistrate Judge Scheer granted leave to amend in the

Serrano action, such that the Serrano action now includes allegations of a

nationwide class of women with respect to Cintas’ employment practices as to

Sales Service Representatives (“SSRs”). The Court understands from the

parties’ case management conference statement that this decision is being

appealed to the District Court judge. If the decision is upheld, what are the

parties’ views on the impact of the Court’s decision to grant leave to amend in

the Serrano action on the pending motion, especially in light of the fact that the

Serrano action is the “first filed” action as to these claims? As to this question

only, the parties may submit a one page written response to the question

prior to the hearing. This response shall be due on October 12, 2005 by 5:00

p.m. The parties will be given an opportunity to respond to these written

positions at the hearing.

4. One of the primary rationales underlying permissive intervention by the EEOC

after a private party has initiated an action is to avoid duplicative litigation when

“both actions find their genesis in one unlawful employment practice charge.”

EEOC v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 493 F.2d 71, 74 (8th Cir. 1974).

The EEOC asserts that the rationale does not apply here because the Serrano case

and this case encompass two separate “charges.” However, it seems to the Court

that these charges had their “genesis in one unlawful employment practice,” and

there is no question that Cintas is now faced with duplicative litigation. 

a. Does the EEOC have any authority to suggest that when parallel

private actions are pending, encompassing the same claims filed

by different “charging” parties, it can choose the action in which

wishes to intervene?

b. Would Cintas oppose a motion to intervene in the Serrano action? 

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 155 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5. What prejudice will Cintas suffer if the Court grants the motion?

6. Does Cintas still intend to move to dismiss the EEOC from this action? If so, on 

what basis? 

7. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: October 11, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 155 Filed 10/11/05 Page 3 of 3