Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04015/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04015-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

ELIZABETH ALVARADO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-04015 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 6, 2008 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

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.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:06-cv-04015-JSW Document 86 Filed 06/04/08 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

2

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. The First Amended Complaint states a cause of action for violation of California

Business and Professions Code § 17200 by “failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and

Class Members overtime compensation, “waiting time” penalties and/or failing to

provide accurate itemized statements.” (FAC at Relief ¶ 8.) If the Court finds that

Defendant bears no liability for failure to pay overtime, waiting time or failure to

provide itemized statements, can Defendant be liable under Section 17200? Does

Defendant move against the third cause of action or can the Court dismiss is sua sponte?

2. Under what theory does Plaintiff maintain that an expert is required to estimate the

average amount of time it takes to conduct a visual inspection upon entering or exiting

the Costco warehouse? Why is Plaintiff’s own estimate of the time it took her at her

place of work not the only piece of relevant evidence in the record? Does Plaintiff’s

declaration filed in opposition to the motion (security inspection takes “upwards of 10

minutes”) contradict her deposition testimony (security inspection takes “a couple of

minutes, maybe.”) (See Alvarado Decl. ¶ 26 contra Kadue Decl., Ex. A at 215:11-18)? 

Why should those contradictory portions of her declaration not be stricken under

Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67 (9th Cir. 1991)?

3. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04015-JSW Document 86 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 2