Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YUE ZHOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WANG’S RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-0279 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF

PLAINTIFF KUO

On November 17, 2006 this court issued an “Order to Show Cause Why Summary Judgment

Should Not Be Entered in Favor of Plaintiff Kuo,” setting a hearing date of December 12, 2006 and a

deadline of December 6, 2006 for Defendant to file a brief and supporting affidavits showing cause

why summary judgment should not be entered in favor of Plaintiff Kuo for unpaid overtime and

liquidated damages in the total amount of $1,051.50. The court expressly notified Defendant that

“this is Defendant’s opportunity to come forward with all evidence it believes relevant to defeating

Plaintiff Kuo’s claims.” On December 6, 2006 Defendant filed a “Declaration of Attorney Eric F.

Hartman in Opposition to Order to Show Cause Why Summary Judgment Should Not be Entered in

Favor of Plaintiff Kuo.” Based on the affidavit filed by Defendant and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the Order to Show Cause Why Summary

Judgment Should Not Be Entered in Favor of Plaintiff Kuo, is continued to 10:00 a.m. on January 9,

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 116 Filed 12/07/06 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 1

See 29 U.S.C. § 260; see also Local 246 Utility Workers Union of America v. Southern

California Edison, 83 F.3d 292, 298 (9th Cir. 1996). 

ORDER, page 2

2007. No later than January 2, 2007, Defendant shall file a brief and supporting affidavits showing

cause why summary judgment should not be entered in favor of Plaintiff Kuo for unpaid overtime

and liquidated damages in the total amount of $1,051.50. Defendant’s failure to submit any

competent evidence with its December 6, 2007 would be sufficient cause for entry of summary

judgment in favor of Kuo. However, in order to further the policy that cases be resolved on the

merits rather than technicalities, the court will give Defendant one more opportunity to present any

competent affidavit(s) it believes demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding: 1) the

hours Kuo worked; 2) the nature of his work duties; 3) the amounts paid to him for each pay

period; and/or 4) the existence of any reasonable grounds for Defendant to have believed that its

conduct complied with the Fair Labor Standards Act.1 However, this is the last opportunity the

court will give Defendant to come forward with such evidence. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 326 (1986) (noting that courts may enter summary judgment sua sponte so long as the losing

party was on notice that it had to come forward with all of its evidence).”

Defendant complains that the court previously ordered an evidentiary hearing with oral

testimony. However, that order related only to the fairness of settlement hearing. And the only

reason the court ordered oral testimony for that hearing was because it had concerns regarding the

conduct towards the Plaintiffs by attorneys Hartman and Wang. The court was not inclined to

subject the Plaintiffs to be deposed by those attorneys without court supervision.

Once it was established at the fairness hearing that no settlement had occurred between

Plaintiff Kuo and Defendant, the fairness hearing was moot as to him. Moreover, the only purpose

of the evidentiary hearing was to determine whether there was any factual basis for finding there

was a bona fide dispute between the parties as to the number of hours worked by the Plaintiffs, the

nature of their work duties, or the amount they had actually been paid, so as to warrant a finding

that the settlements were fair. The evidentiary hearing was never intended to be a means for

determining the precise amount, if anything, each Plaintiff was owed. The court heard enough

testimony to determine that Plaintiff Kuo had not settled his claims against Defendant, and that

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 116 Filed 12/07/06 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

ORDER, page 3

Plaintiff Zhou and Defendant did have a bona fide dispute with regard to the nature of his primary

job duties. No further oral testimony was thus warranted. 

After soliciting input from the parties, and based on the evidence already in the record, the

court determined that an order to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered in

favor of Plaintiff Kuo appears to be the procedure most likely to expeditiously resolve his claims. 

Courts rarely take oral testimony in deciding motions for summary judgment. See Thompson v.

Mahre, 110 F.3d 716, 720 (9th Cir. 1997). The court is not inclined to make an exception in this

case. The court will base its determination on the evidence in the record, including whatever

competent affidavits Defendant submits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervener Adam Wang’s motion for attorneys fees is

continued to January 16, 2007 to allow the court resolve the substantive motions before addressing

the attorneys fees issue.

Dated: 12/7/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 116 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 3