Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILIANA SOLIS, on behalf of herself, the

general public and as an “aggrieved employee”

under the California Labor Code Private

Attorneys General Act,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGIS CORPORATION and each of its

subsidiaries doing business in California under

such names as Supercuts, Pro-Cuts, MasterCuts,

CostCutters, Regis Salons, Trade Secret,

SmartStyle, Carlton Hair International, Mia &

Maxx Hair Studio, First Choice Haircutters,

Magicuts, City Looks, Hair Crafters, Great

Expectations, We Care Hair, Style America, Best

Cuts, HairMasters, Saturday's, BoRics, Jean

Louis David, Coiff & Co., Intermede, Vidal

Sassoon, Blaine Beauty School and Saint Algue,

and DOES 1-50,

Defendant. /

No. C05-3039 CRB (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA TO LA SALLE BANK, AS

MODIFIED

Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena to La Salle National Bank came on for

hearing on April 11, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, 15th floor, of the above-entitled Court,

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte presiding. Catherine M. Dacre appeared on behalf of Defendant

Regis Corporation and Mark Thierman appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff.

Having considered all materials filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, and oral

argument having been heard, the Court orders as follows:

Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena to La Salle National Bank is GRANTED

without prejudice as to the following items at issue in the subpoena:

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 214 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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. Documents from the Supercuts payroll account (#5590008487) regarding/reflecting

the profitability of the account within the time frame of June 22, 2001 to the present;

2. Documents from the Supercuts payroll account (#5590008487) regarding/reflecting

monthly service charges of the account within the time frame of June 22, 2001 to the

present; and

5. Documents from the Supercuts payroll account (#5590008487) regarding/reflecting

the cost of operating the account within the time frame of June 22, 2001 to the

present.

Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena to La Salle National Bank is DENIED as to

the remaining items at issue in the subpoena. However, the subpoena is limited in scope to the time

period of June 22, 2004 through July 31, 2005. This order pertains to the following items:

3. Documents from the Supercuts payroll account (#5590008487) regarding/reflecting

how long it specifically takes for checks to clear from that account within the time

frame of June 22, 2004 through July 31, 2005;

4. Documents from the Supercuts payroll account (#5590008487) of the front and back

of all checks made payable to Liliana Solis within the time frame of June 22, 2004

through July 31, 2005; and

6. Documents reflecting Supercuts' involvement with the LaSalle bank as officer,

director or controlling shareholder within the time frame of June 22, 2004 through

July 31, 2005.

The Court indicated at the hearing that, in the event that Plaintiff successfully amends the

complaint to allege claims under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code,

documents dating back over a four-year period from the filing date would become relevant with

respect to categories 3, 4 and 6. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208. The Court also indicated that

if Plaintiff successfully amends, appropriately narrowed requests for categories 1, 2, and 5 would

likely be relevant to any claim for restitution. The Court has advised the parties of its expectation

that they will successfully meet and confer on these issues if the complaint is so amended. 

In her April 16, 2007 letter to the Court, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 214 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

quashing the subpoena for documents relating to Defendant’s profitability, contending that

Defendant “may rely on California Labor Code 2699(e)(1) and (2) which provides [sic] relief from

the standard penalty of $200 per incorrect check when under the ‘facts and circumstances of the

particular case, to do otherwise would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary, and oppressive and

confiscatory.’” Docket No. 213. Plaintiff did not raise this argument in her papers or at the hearing,

and Defendant has not had an opportunity to respond. The parties shall meet and confer as to

whether Defendant expects to seek such relief from the statutory penalty, and as to Plaintiff’s

argument about the relevance of profit derived from the prohibited act. If the parties do not resolve

the matter, Defendant shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s letter brief, which is hereby construed as

a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, by April 30, 2007. See L.R. 7-9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 214 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3