Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04671/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04671-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MSJ [Proposed] Order.doc

Case No. C09-04671 EDL

1

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

ANDREW H. BAKER, SBN 104197

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC

1404 Franklin Street, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612-3208

Telephone: (510) 625-9700

Facsimile: (510) 625-8275

Email: abaker@beesontayer.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Teamsters Local 853

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT SAN FRANCISCO

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 853,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. C. PAPER,

Defendant.

Case No. C09-04671 EDL

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: January 5, 2010

Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: E, 15th Floor

Judge: Elizabeth D. Laporte

Complaint Filed: October 1, 2009

Trial Date: None set

This matter came before the Court on January 5, 2010, upon Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment. Having considered the arguments and papers submitted in support of and in opposition to

the motion, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby rules as follows.

Plaintiff argues that Arbitrator Riker had jurisdiction to hear and decide any disputes

regarding Defendant’s refusal to reinstate Grievant Jimmy Negrette following the issuance of

Arbitrator Riker’s April 2008 decision, including disputes over Defendant’s obligation to pay

Negrette back pay and benefits following July 17, 2007, the date Defendant asserts it terminated

Negrette a second time, retroactively, following the issuance of the Arbitrator’s April 2008 decision.

Plaintiff therefore argues that Arbitrator Riker acted within his jurisdiction when he issued his August

2009 decision ordering Defendant to reimburse Negrette for lost back pay and benefits through

November 8, 2008, the date he was subject to layoff.

Case 3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document 22 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document20 Filed01/07/10 Page1 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MSJ [Proposed] Order.doc

Case No. C09-04671 EDL

2

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

Defendant argues Arbitrator Riker never had jurisdiction over the termination of Negrette

effective July 17, 2007, and submits that at the second day of hearing it did not present evidence to

the Arbitrator about that termination based on this position. Defendant argues that Arbitrator Riker

never assumed jurisdiction over the July 17, 2007 termination and that his decision was made without

considering that issue.

The Court is unable to decide at this time whether Arbitrator Riker decided that his remedial

jurisdiction covered disputes over Defendant’s refusal to reinstate Negrette based on Defendant’s

termination of Negrette effective July 17, 2007, and was therefore prepared to hear and decide that

issue. Accordingly, the Court is remanding this matter to Arbitrator Riker with instructions for the

Arbitrator to issue an appropriate ruling clarifying his jurisdiction in this regard. Specifically,

Arbitrator Riker is asked to clarify whether his remedial jurisdiction included authority to determine

whether Defendant’s second termination of the Grievant, the termination Defendant asserts was

effective July 17, 2007, cut off Defendant’s back pay obligations to the Grievant, and whether, had

Defendant submitted evidence regarding that second termination, he would have issued a decision

explicitly addressing that issue.

Arbitrator Riker is directed to issue his ruling clarifying the scope of his jurisdiction within

sixty days of this Order. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter while it is pending before

Arbitrator Riker. Upon issuance of Arbitrator Riker’s ruling, the parties are directed to submit his

ruling to this Court, at which time the Court will issue an appropriate Order regarding Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________ _________________________________

Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document20 Filed01/07/10 Page2 of 3

January 8, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document 22 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MSJ [Proposed] Order.doc

Case No. C09-04671 EDL

3

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

Approved as to form.

Dated: January 7, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. LEPORIERE

By: /s/David A. Leporiere

DAVID A. LEPORIERE

Attorney for Defendant J.C. Paper

Case 3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document 22 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 3 Case3:09-cv-04671-EDL Document20 Filed01/07/10 Page3 of 3