Kairy et al v. Supershuttle International et al

Filing 209

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 10, 2009. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROOSEVELT KAIRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Defendants. / TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2009 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on 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 reference to 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 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. NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS No. C 08-02993 JSW United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2. 3. 4. 1. The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss California causes of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: Should the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss the California causes of action, does Plaintiff intend to proceed on the sole remaining Fair Labor Standards Act claim? Do Defendants contend that the Rule 19 motion applies to the federal claim if that is the only one remaining? What is the status and relationship of the related case pending in the Southern District of California, Supershuttle v. Henning, et al.? Regardless of whether the parties are in fact necessary to the FLSA claim, does Plaintiff oppose adding the four current City Licensees and the subdrivers to the suit? Do the parties have anything further they wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 10, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?