Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03099/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03099-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

JOSEPH F. GUERIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GENENTECH INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-03099 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULINGS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 7, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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, without argument or additional briefing. See 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. The

parties each shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What material facts in the record before the Court indicate that Defendant acted

as NetVersant’s joint employer under the five factor test outlined in Wynn

Case 3:04-cv-03099-JSW Document 56 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1093-94 (C.D. Cal.

2002) (citing Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 639-640 (9th Cir. 1997)? 

a. What specific evidence in the record (page and line) supports Plaintiff’s

contention that Genentech had “control of virtually everything ... pertinent to

[Plaintiff’s] employment.” (See Opp. Br. at p. 7.)

2. What material facts in the record before the Court indicate that Defendant’s

proffered reason for terminating the customer relationship with Plaintiff was

pretextual?

3. What is Plaintiff’s theory regarding the applicability of the Unruh Act to this

matter?

4. Do the parties have any other issues they wish to address?

Dated: October 6, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03099-JSW Document 56 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2