Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05806/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05806-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

MORRIS BICKLEY, MICHAEL D.

PRATTON, RAYMOND GREWE, DENNIS

VANHORN, and DOUGLASS PUMROY,

individually and on behalf of themselves, all

others similarly situated, and the general

public,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC.,

a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 to 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-05806 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

A STAY AND MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Now before the Court are the motions filed by defendant Schneider National Carriers,

Inc. (“Schneider”) for a stay of discovery and of the briefing and hearing of Schneider’s motion

for summary judgment and for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Upon review of the

parties’ papers and the relevant legal authority, the Court finds that a stay of discovery and of

the briefing and hearing of Schneider’s motion for summary judgment is not warranted. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Schneider’s motion for a stay.

Under local rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration any

time before judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on

one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or

a change of 

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 198 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 4
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

. The Court notes that Schneider filed its motion for summary judgment before the

Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. If Schneider would like to move for

summary adjudication of this legal issue, the Court hereby provides Schneider leave to

withdraw its current motion for summary judgment and file a revised motion to include this

legal issue. If Schneider wants to revise its motion for summary judgment, it shall file a

notice of withdrawal by no later than noon on January 7, 2012. Defendants’ revised motion

for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed by no later than January 25, 2013.

2

law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments presented before entry of judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party

may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Id., 7-9(c).

Schneider argues that the Court failed to resolve substantive legal issues that were

necessary to resolve the motion for class certification. According to Schneider, the Court was

required to determine whether or not Schneider’s pay scheme is legal before it determined that

class certification was warranted. The Court disagrees. Whether or not Schneider’s pay

scheme is a legal question raised by Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The applicable inquiry before the Court

on the motion for class certification was whether this is a legal question that may be addressed

on a class-wide basis. The Court determined that it is. If Schneider wants the Court to

determine the legality of its pay scheme, Schneider may seek such a determination through a

motion for summary judgment.1

Schneider further contends that the Court erroneously determined that it had made a

concession and premised the Order granting class certification on this purported concession. 

Schneider takes issue with the Court’s statement that “Schneider concedes that it unilaterally

determines the pieces for which its employees are paid and that it is not relying on the drivers’

intent or expectations.” (Order at 7.) Perhaps “concession” was not the appropriate word. 

Nevertheless, neither party argues, or demonstrates, that the drivers’ pay is determined, in part,

on the drivers’ understanding or intent. Schneider determines what the pay is. The issue,

common to all class members, is whether Scheider’s pay scheme of “including” or “building in”

pay for certain tasks is legal. Schneider has not demonstrated that the Court erred in 

///

///

///

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 198 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 4
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

determining that class certification should have been granted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Schneider’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2013 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 198 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:08-cv-05806-JSW Document 198 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4