Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06783/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06783-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Beard
Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME BEARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 18-06783 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

INTRODUCTION

In this employment dispute, plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings. For the

reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

A prior order provided the facts in full (Dkt. No. 51). In brief, plaintiff Jerome Beard

has worked as a software sales representative at defendant International Business Machines

Corporation since 1983. IBM paid Beard a salary plus uncapped commissions during his

employment. IBM would assign Beard a revenue target and tie his commission compensation

to a percentage of the target attained. 

In July 2017, Beard received an “incentive plan letter” (IPL) from IBM that described

his commission plan for the rest of 2017 and set his sales quota at $934,736 (Dkt. No. 30-1). 

He also received and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that repeatedly stated that payments

Case 3:18-cv-06783-WHA Document 75 Filed 12/20/19 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

under the compensation plan would be uncapped. Furthermore, the PowerPoint stated that the

IPL was the “primary 2017 education for IBM sales employees” and “[i]t covers the information

you will need to understand your 2017 plan.” In 2017, Beard closed two large deals that

generated $25.2 million in revenue subject to commission. Beard alleges that he earned

$2,901,806 in commission based on these amounts, but IBM refused to pay full commission

because it “was simply too much money to pay” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5–9).

In November 2018, Beard filed this civil action asserting (1) violation of California’s

Labor Code Sections 2751 and 221, (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL),

(3) race discrimination, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (6) negligent

misrepresentation. In April 2019, an order granted in part and denied in part IBM’s motion to

dismiss Beard’s claims (Dkt. No. 51). Beard now moves for judgment on the pleadings against

IBM under his second claim for relief alleging a UCL violation. This order follows full briefing

and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

 “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material fact

in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. Pickard,

581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). Although Beard began

working at IBM before California’s Labor Code Section 2751 came into effect, the statute still

applies. There is a question of material fact, however, about whether or not the IPL is a contract. 

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06783-WHA Document 75 Filed 12/20/19 Page 2 of 2