Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03039-22/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)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By her April 16, 2007 letter to the Court, which has been construed as a motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order quashing the

subpoena for documents relating to Defendant’s profitability. See Docket No. 214. Defendant filed

an opposition to Plaintiff’s letter brief on May 7, 2007. Docket No. 225. For failure to show

grounds for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(b), Plaintiff’s

motion for leave is denied without prejudice. As the Court instructed at the hearing on Defendant’s

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 226 Filed 05/09/07 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

Motion to Quash, the parties are fully expected to meet and confer through direct dialogue and

discussion on issues that become relevant during the course of discovery. If Defendant does intend

to assert a defense which depends on profitability, that may well open the door to discovery on this

topic. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03039-CRB Document 226 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 2