Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00281-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

ROBERT RAMIREZ, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CINTAS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-00281 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SET FOR DECEMBER 14, 2007:

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 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. 

The Court tentatively grants the unopposed motion to approve the dismissal of Plaintiff

Vick’s individual and class claims.

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

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 233 Filed 12/11/07 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

1. Does the language in the proposed stipulation regarding Ms. Vick not being an

adequate class representative have any potential impact on the class claims? 

Why is that language necessary?

2. Plaintiffs represented in the motion that no members of the putative class whom

Ms. Vick sought to represent have contacted them. Has anything changed since

the motion was filed?

a. Plaintiffs assert that absent class members have not relied on Ms. Vick’s

claims against Cintas. Given the press materials that mentioned Ms. Vick

by name and the age of the case, what is Plaintiff’s best support for this

proposition? Can the Court find a lack of prejudice notwithstanding the

publicity based on the fact that the statute of limitations would not

preclude persons similar to Ms. Vick from asserting claims against

Cintas? 

b. Would either party seek to avoid the settlement if the Court required

some sort of notice, such as a press release, to alert class members, who

may have refrained from filing suit, to the dismissal of the class claims. 

3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: December 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00281-JSW Document 233 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 2