Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04022/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04022-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUNICE LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ULTA SALON,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-04022 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

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 legal 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, with pin cites and without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. 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 also suggests that associates or

of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the

Court’s questions contained herein.

The Court tentatively grants the motion for preliminary approval. Although the Court

does not normally permit briefing on the questions in advance of the hearing, the Court believes

Case 3:09-cv-04022-JSW Document 42 Filed 08/23/10 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

many of its questions can be answered without the need for oral argument. Accordingly, if the

parties wish to respond to the questions in writing, they may do so by no later than August 30,

2010, otherwise they shall appear at the hearing as scheduled and shall have ten (10) minutes

each to address the questions set forth herein. If the parties submit written responses and if the

Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument, it shall notify the parties

in advance of the hearing.

1. In the event a Class Member were to dispute the number of weeks worked and/or

his or her salary, is there a mechanism by which they dispute the amount of their

Settlement Payment? If so, what is that mechanism?

2. Do Plaintiffs anticipate submitting a declaration from Ms. Mantegna at the time

of final approval to justify the service payment she seeks?

3. Do the parties object to modifying the proposed form of notice and proposed

order to reflect that the service payment sought by Ms. Mantegna also is subject

to Court approval? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04022-JSW Document 42 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2