Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04027/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04027-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

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

VICTORIA ROGER-VASSELIN,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-4027 TEH 

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT MARRIOTT

INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Marriott International, Inc.’s motion

for summary judgment. After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and supporting papers,

the Court finds this motion suitable for decision without oral argument.

Plaintiffs’ evidence that they were employed by Marriott International is sufficient to

raise a triable issue of fact. For example, Plaintiffs submitted copies of Marriott International

employment applications and offer letters stating that Plaintiffs accepted the “offer to be

employed by Marriott International, Inc.” See, e.g., Exs. A, C, and G to Roger-Vasselin

Decl.; Exs. B and I to Arrick Decl; Ex. B to Kittner Decl. Defendants presented evidence

that these were routine form applications and that the offer letters contained boilerplate

language that only inadvertently included references to Marriott International. The Court

cannot, however, weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes at this stage of proceedings. 

Viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence presented does not preclude a

Case 3:04-cv-04027-TEH Document 101 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

1

Because the Court finds that whether Marriott International, Inc. was Plaintiffs’

employer is a triable issue of fact, the Court need not reach Defendant’s argument regarding

whether Marriott International may be held liable as part of an integrated enterprise;

Plaintiffs need not rely on the latter theory to survive summary judgment.

2

finding that Marriott International, Inc. employed Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court hereby

DENIES Marriott International, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/12/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-04027-TEH Document 101 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2