Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-101/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

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

ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL

MASTER’S APRIL 7, 2008 ORDER

REGARDING PARKER’S STANDING

AND TIMELINESS OF FEE PETITIONS;

SETTING SCHEDULE FOR

RESOLUTION OF PENDING MATTERS

 On April 7, 2008, the Special Master issued an order holding that Kay McKenzie Parker had

standing to seek statutory fees in the Alvarado and Boswell cases, and that the fee petitions Ms. Parker

had filed were timely. Ms. Parker has filed a motion to adopt the Special Master’s order, and defendant

has filed a motion to partially reject or reverse the Special Master’s order. Plaintiffs have not filed any

pleadings in response to the Special Master’s order, or to the motions filed by Ms. Parker or defendant.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f), the Court hereby ADOPTS the Special

Master’s April 7, 2008 order (Docket No. 1062). As an initial matter, the Court rejects defendant’s

assertion – made without any citation or justification – that the Special Master ignored a number of

defendant’s pleadings. The Special Master’s Order references and discusses a number of these

documents and specifically addresses, and rejects, contentions advanced by defendant. Further, the

record demonstrates that the Special Master reviewed extensive briefing from the parties and Ms.

Parker, and conducted several hearings on the matter. Further, the Court finds that the Special Master

correctly applied the relevant and controlling legal authority to determine that Ms. Parker’s fee petitions

are timely, and that Ms. Parker has standing to seek statutory fees pursuant to FEHA.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Parker’s motion to adopt the Special Master’s order

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1145 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 3
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

(Docket No. 1087) and DENIES defendant’s motion to partially reject or reverse the Special Master’s

Order. (Docket No. 1085). The Special Master shall now determine the reasonableness of the fee

petitions in the Alvarado and Boswell cases, and the Special Master may direct the submission of

supplemental briefs and/or hold additional hearings as necessary.

With regard to the seven plaintiffs who have settled with defendant and as to whom defendant

has interplead 50% of the settlement funds with the Court (“settlement plaintiffs”), the Court directs as

follows: within 15 days after finality in this Court of this order, defendant shall renew its declaratory

relief motion as to the settlement plaintiffs (Docket No. 976), or shall inform the Court and the parties

that the motion will not be renewed. If this Court’s decision on declaratory relief as to the settlement

plaintiffs allows Ms. Parker to apply for fees, then within 30 days after that decision is final, or within

30 days after FedEx informs the Court and the parties that it will not renew its declaratory relief motion,

Ms. Parker shall file with this Court her motion for attorney’s fees and expenses as to the settlement

plaintiffs. That motion will be briefed according to the schedule set forth in the Civil Local Rules, and

will be submitted without oral argument unless this Court informs the parties that a hearing is necessary.

This Court will then issue an order on Ms. Parker’s claim for attorney’s fees and expenses as to the

settlement plaintiffs, as well as all pending claims to the interplead funds.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1145 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1145 Filed 06/05/08 Page 3 of 3