Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06997/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06997-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1144(a) E.R.I.S.A supersedes state law employee benefits

---

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

GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

and DOES 1-15,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06997 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

NOVEMBER 2, 2007 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, 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.

Case 3:06-cv-06997-JSW Document 68 Filed 11/01/07 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 25 minutes to address the following questions:

1. With both parties moving for summary judgment on essentially the same question,

which party has the burden to demonstrate that the Ordinance is valid or, in this case,

not preempted? (See Intervenor’s Reply Br. at 5, citing cases indicating that in a facial

challenge to a law that has not yet gone into effect, the burden is on the challenger to

establish that there are no set of circumstances under which the law could be valid.) 

2. All parties agree that the City could have passed an Ordinance requiring all employers to

pay a tax to fund a government health program. Why is the payment of a minimum

amount to cover health care costs, either privately through an ERISA plan, or publicly

through the City’s plan, not an acceptable non-ERISA option for purposes of a

preemption analysis?

3. Why is the Ordinance not an appropriate exercise of the State’s police power? The City

cites DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976), for the proposition that child labor

laws, minimum and other wage laws, laws affecting occupational health and safety, and

workmen’s compensation laws are traditional areas of state police power. However, is

the creation of a public alternative for employer-provided health benefit programs

traditionally an area of state or local police power?

4. The Intervenors argue that the San Francisco Ordinance at issue is akin to prevailing

wage laws that mandate a prevailing wage rate and grant contractors credit for

expenditures made on health care and other benefits. Is there authority establishing the

similarity or are Plaintiffs correct that this is merely a creative argument by analogy? 

Are the same employees covered by both ordinances or are there different eligibility

requirements? 

5. On what basis does Plaintiff contend that the Ordinance creates a de facto ERISA plan?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06997-JSW Document 68 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2