Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02096/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02096-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MCDONALD'S CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02096-RS 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Defendants McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s USA, LLC (“McDonalds”) filed a 

motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2016. That motion was granted in part and denied in 

part on August 16, 2016. Notably, Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their California Labor 

Code claims under an ostensible agency theory. Without seeking leave to file a successive motion 

or a motion for reconsideration, McDonalds filed a second motion for summary judgment on 

November 18, 2016. Therein, McDonalds argues that “Plaintiffs’ theory of ostensible agency is 

insufficient as a matter of law to support claims brought under the California Labor Code.” Dkt. 

No. 251 at 2. This second motion appears to present arguments that could have been raised in the 

first motion for summary judgment. For this reason, Plaintiffs now move summarily to deny 

McDonalds’ motion. 

As McDonalds’ motion appears to be based on previously available evidence, McDonalds’

second motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. If McDonalds wishes to refile 

its motion, it must first request leave to do so. In such request, McDonalds should state why its

motion is not based on previously available evidence and explain why the motion should not be 

deemed a motion for reconsideration. 

Case 3:14-cv-02096-RS Document 256 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 14-cv-02096-RS

2

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02096-RS Document 256 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 2