Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00099-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (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

1

 The Court is not referring defendant’s motion for declaratory relief to the Special Master, nor

does the Court envision that the Special Master will conduct any proceedings with regard to the issues

raised by defendant’s current motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI, No. C 04-0099 SI

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

On February 1, 2008, the Court heard argument on defendant’s motion for declaratory relief. 

Defendant seeks an order holding that the lienholders may not state a claim for fees or costs against

FedEx with regard to the seven settling plaintiffs. One lienholder, Kay McKenzie Parker, has filed a

response to defendant’s motion, asserting that the motion should be referred to the Special Master

because he is currently considering many of the same issues regarding fees and costs in connection

with the three plaintiffs who have prevailed at trial. Defendant opposes referral.

The Court finds that it is prudent to allow the Special Master to conclude his work on the

matters pending before him before this Court resolves the issues raised by defendant’s motion for

declaratory relief. Defendant may be correct that the attorneys’ fees matters before the Special

Master are analytically distinct from the questions presented by defendant’s motion for declaratory

relief. However, the Court finds it would be premature to make such a determination without the

benefit of the Special Master’s decisions on the motions pending before him.1

 Accordingly, the

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 274 Filed 02/04/08 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

Court DENIES defendant’s motion without prejudice to renewal in this Court after the Special

Master has concluded his work on the motions currently pending before him. (Docket No. 976). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00099-SI Document 274 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2