Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03358-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORDAN KASPERZYK,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHETLER SECURITY SERVICES, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C13-3358 EMC/TEH 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 92 and 98)

On February 26, 2015, this Court held a hearing on a summary judgment motion brought by

Defendants Shetler Security Services, Inc. and Michael Shetler (collectively, SSS). Docket No. 98. 

The Court also heard argument on a summary judgment motion brought by Defendants Lucasfilm

Ltd.; Letterman Digital Arts Ltd.; and Skywalker Properties (collectively, Lucasfilm). Docket No.

92. 

On March 6, 2015, this case was reassigned to the Honorable Thelton Henderson for all

further proceedings. Docket No. 114. In order to aide Judge Henderson and the parties in preparing

this case for trial, the Court hereby provides its summary judgment rulings. The undersigned will

issue a fuller Order containing this Court’s reasoning for its summary judgment rulings in due

course:

A. Docket No. 92 (Lucasfilm’s Motion for Summary Judgment)

The Court DENIES Lucasfilm’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. 

///

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-03358-TEH Document 115 Filed 03/06/15 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 1

 See Docket No. 88-1 (Fourth Amended Complaint). 

2

B. Docket No. 98 (SSS’s Motion for Summary Judgment)

The Court GRANTS SSS’s motion for summary judgment on the following claims1: Claim

4 (Breach of Contract Reached at “Arbitration”); Claim 6 (Retaliation); Claim 9 (Fraud); and Claim

10 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress). The Court denies the remainder of SSS’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2015

_________________________

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03358-TEH Document 115 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 2