Lee v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.

Filing 42

Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 23, 2010. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2010)

Download PDF
Lee v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EUNICE LEE, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, Defendants. / No. C 09-04022 JSW NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal 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 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 also 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. The Court tentatively grants the motion for preliminary approval. Although the Court does not normally permit briefing on the questions in advance of the hearing, the Court believes Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 many of its questions can be answered without the need for oral argument. Accordingly, if the parties wish to respond to the questions in writing, they may do so by no later than August 30, 2010, otherwise they shall appear at the hearing as scheduled and shall have ten (10) minutes each to address the questions set forth herein. If the parties submit written responses and if the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument, it shall notify the parties in advance of the hearing. 1. In the event a Class Member were to dispute the number of weeks worked and/or his or her salary, is there a mechanism by which they dispute the amount of their Settlement Payment? If so, what is that mechanism? 2. Do Plaintiffs anticipate submitting a declaration from Ms. Mantegna at the time of final approval to justify the service payment she seeks? 3. Do the parties object to modifying the proposed form of notice and proposed order to reflect that the service payment sought by Ms. Mantegna also is subject to Court approval? IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 Dated: August 23, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?