Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01233/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01233-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IAN MCCRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITE HERE! LOCAL 19,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01233-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS

[Re: ECF 21]

Defendant seeks leave to respond to Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s Supplemental 

Request for Judicial Notice, filed with Defendant’s Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss. 

ECF 21. Defendant contends that the objections raise two new legal arguments: (1) that the Court 

may only look to ordinances and official acts that existed at the time the Union and the Employer 

negotiated a waiver to the San Jose Minimum Wage Ordinance in determining whether the 

Union’s conduct violated the duty of fair representation, and (2) that the Court may not look to 

officials’ interpretations in determining whether the Union’s similar interpretation violated the 

duty of fair representation. Id. at 2. The former concerns relevance—a determination the Court is 

prepared to make without further argument—while the latter was, in fact, raised in Plaintiff’s 

opposition. See ECF 16 at 20. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01233-BLF Document 24 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 1