Ulin v. Lovell's Antique Gallery et al

Filing 100

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON FALSE DOCUMENTS ISSUE. Signed by Judge Laporte on 10/27/10. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2010)

Download PDF
Ulin v. Lovell's Antique Gallery et al Doc. 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California JUAN BONIFACIO ULIN, Plaintiff, v. LOVELL'S ANTIQUE GALLERY, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ Having further considered the potential impact of the undisputed fact that Plaintiff submitted false documents to his employer at the time of his employment on the legal issues in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to revisit this topic prior to trial. The Court believes that further briefing would be helpful to the Court and to the parties to narrow the related issues prior to trial. As the Court mentioned in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the record is silent on the factual issue of whether Plaintiff's employer was actually deceived by Plaintiff, and/or whether the employer was complicit in hiring or retaining Plaintiff as a falsely documented employee, and the Court believes that this fact may potentially be determinative of the impact that Plaintiff's documentation status has on some or all of the issues in this case. See Dkt. # 94 at 12. The Court hereby Orders that the parties each submit additional briefing of no more than eight (8) pages per side addressing the following topics by no later than November 5, 2010: No. C-09-03160 EDL ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON FALSE DOCUMENTS ISSUE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If the Court allows evidence on the factual issue of whether Defendants were actually deceived by Plaintiff, and/or whether they were complicit in hiring or retaining a falsely documented employee, which side has the burden of proof on this issue; If the Court, in its capacity as trier of fact for this bench trial, determines that the employer was actually deceived by Plaintiff, what would be the impact of this finding of fact on Plaintiff's case? Specifically, would such a finding preclude all of Plaintiff's claims, only his federal liquidated damages claim, or have no impact on his claims? IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California Dated: October 27, 2010 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _______________________________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

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?