Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

BRET ROBERT OSBORN, MICHAEL

PRAFF, KATHLEEN ANN PRAFF, and

MARTY GAYLE OSBORN, on behalf of

themselves, the general public, and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EMC CORPORATION, and Does 1 through

50,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00336 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 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005: 

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant EMC’s Corp.’s motion for summary

judgment and tentatively DENIES Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Further,

the Court tentatively GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of class

action settlement. 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 

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/29/05 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

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.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) What is the status of the appeal in Koehl, et al. v. Verio, Inc. attached to Plaintiffs’

Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities?

(2) What authority, if any, demonstrates that the advances at issue are “assignments of

wages” covered by California Labor Code section 300?

(3) If the Court concludes that EMC’s practice of charging back advances made on

commissions is not unlawful, would Plaintiffs still contend that the releases signed are

invalid? If so, on what basis?

(4) In opposition to EMC’s motion, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the releases are unlawful

under California Civil Code section 1542 (“Section 1542”) regarding the release of

unknown claims. In Jefferson v. California Department of Youth Authority, 28 Cal.4th

299, 306-7 (2002), clarified that a general release of “all claims and causes of action”

would be sufficient to release all claims, including unknown claims. Moreover, a release

may cover to unknown claims if there is a factual showing that the parties intended to

settle unknown claims. Id. at 307. The Jefferson Court held that a section in the release

quoting Section 1542 and stating “this release will apply to all unknown and

unanticipated injuries ... and all rights under Section 1542 ... are expressly waived”

unambiguously established the parties’ intent to cover such claims. Id. Here, the

releases at issue specifically reference and explain Section 1542. On what evidence in

the record do Plaintiffs rely to demonstrate the parties did not intend to release unknown

claims? 

(5) In Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, they assert that EMC stipulated that there

are over 100 sales employees in California who were subject to the charge back

provisions. However, in the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action

settlement, the parties assert that the class contains approximately 60 employees. How

many employees are in the class affected by the proposed settlement? If the number is

100 as opposed to 60, would that affect the fairness of the proposed settlement?

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/29/05 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

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 3