Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00884/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00884-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Steven Wamboldt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAMBOLDT,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0884 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court are various motions of defendant Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.

(“defendant” or “Safety-Kleen”). First defendant requests leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s August 21, 2007 order denying its motion for summary

judgment as to plaintiff’s overtime claim. In the alternative, defendant seeks leave to

request certification of the court’s order to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b). Defendant also seeks leave to file a second summary judgment motion. 

Finally, defendant requests a stay of all proceedings until the court has had an opportunity

to reconsider the new motion for summary judgment and/or it has had an opportunity to

exhaust its appellate rights. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(d), the court hereby GRANTS Safety-Kleen’s

request to file a motion for reconsideration. The court agrees with defendant that it failed to

recognize the distinction between the evidence presented concerning the two separate

services provided by defendant. It appears that plaintiff may have only created an issue of

disputed material fact with regards to whether he transported hazardous parts washing

solutions, but not as to other types of industrial hazardous waste described in SafetyCase 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 73 Filed 09/10/07 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

Kleen’s motion for summary judgment. If defendant is correct in its arguments, it appears

there would be no factual dispute as to the transportation of hazardous waste, leaving only

the legal question of whether the motor carrier exemption applies.

Accordingly Safety-Kleen may file a motion for reconsideration of this court’s prior

ruling on its motion for summary judgment on the basis that there is no dispute of material

fact as to plaintiff’s transport of hazardous waste and that California’s motor carrier

exemption applies. However, Safety-Kleen shall not reargue the same points made in its

original motion. Rather, Safety-Kleen should set forth additional argument that might help

the court decide the issues raised in the August 21, 2007 order. Both parties should

discuss whether there is any conflict between state and federal law regarding the

exemption and how to resolve that conflict if there is one, and they should identify the state

statutory, regulatory or decisional law that dictates or suggests that state courts do or

would follow federal law in applying the exemption. 

With regard to the motion for leave to file a request for certification, the court finds

that in the absence of a disputed question of fact, all that remains is a legal question as to

the applicability of the exemption; a question that this court must decide in the first instance

before it would be ripe for appellate consideration. Defendant’s request is, therefore

DENIED.

With regard to the motion to file a second summary judgment motion, the court

GRANTS the motion with certain conditions. Safety-Kleen may move for summary

judgment on the new legal basis described by Safety-Kleen – that plaintiff falls under the

United States Department of Transportation exemption for motor carriers. However, the

court will entertain only one more motion. Thus, the motion for reconsideration and the

second motion for summary judgment must be contained in one brief not exceeding 25

pages, and must be strictly limited to the two exemptions referred to in this order.

Safety-Kleen must file this single joint motion for summary judgment and for

reconsideration no later than September 26, 2007. Plaintiff shall oppose the motion no

Case 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 73 Filed 09/10/07 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

later than October 10, 2007. Safety-Kleen shall file a reply brief no later than October 17,

2007. The motions will be heard on October 31, 2007, unless the court notifies the parties

in advance of the hearing that no hearing is necessary. 

Safety-Kleen’s request to stay these proceedings, including class notice

proceedings, is GRANTED. All aspects of this case shall remain stayed until the court

resolves the motion for reconsideration and for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00884-PJH Document 73 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 3