Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07965/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07965-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

JENNIFER JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOUBLECLICK INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-07965 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 1, 2008 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, with pin cites and 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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:06-cv-07965-JSW Document 48 Filed 01/31/08 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 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What evidence in the record indicates that Plaintiff suffered from performance

difficulties from July 28, 2006, the time of her supervisor’s e-mail regarding his

performance expectations, to September 28, 2006, the date of her termination? Were

any of these alleged performance difficulties related to Plaintiff’s pregnant status? Is

there any evidence in the record demonstrating that Defendant believed Plaintiff’s

performance issues were related to her pregnant status?

2. Is there any evidence in the record indicating the reason for Defendant’s decision not to

give Plaintiff a 30-day probation period as discussed internally?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07965-JSW Document 48 Filed 01/31/08 Page 2 of 2