Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILIANA SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE REGIS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03039 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss. After carefully

considering the papers filed by the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and DENIES defendant’s motion.

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that it is

plaintiff’s employer. In support of its motion it relies on affidavits. The Court may not

consider affidavits on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Hal Roach

Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Generally,

a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule

12(b)(6) motion”). The case upon which defendant relies, Ritza v. International

Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1988), is inapposite. 

Ritza merely holds that a district court may consider affidavits on a motion to dismiss for

matters in abatement. Id. at 369. The reason for this rule is that a district court may make

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 23 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3039\orderremotion1.wpd 2

factual findings on a jurisdictional or abatement motion. Id. The issue here, however, goes

to the merits of a jury question. Defendant’s motion is improper.

The same analysis applies to defendant’s argument that there is no factual basis for

plaintiff’s allegations that defendant failed to properly pay her and members of the class

overtime. Defendant’s motion is premature and can only be decided on a motion for

summary judgment after plaintiff has had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery.

The parties shall still appear at 10:00 a.m. on January 20, 2006 for a status conference. 

In advance of the conference, they shall meet and confer on a discovery schedule and provide

the Court with such schedule in their case management conference statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 23 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2