Noble v. Federal Express Corporation

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 17 Motion for judgment on the pleadings but limiting Plaintiff's recovery. Plaintiff's damages shall be limited to $37,753.77, not including any statutory attorneys' fees and costs. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 KATHRYN NOBLE, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., NO. C11-1062 TEH ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BUT LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY 9 Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 This matter comes before the Court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed 13 by Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) based on Plaintiff Kathryn Noble’s 14 initial failure to include this lawsuit as a potential asset in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings.1 15 On October 20, 2011, this Court issued an order directing the parties to meet and confer on 16 whether it would be appropriate to follow the outcome in Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide 17 Corp., Case No. 2:10-CV-00068-PMP-LRL, 2011 WL 2910112 (D. Nev. July 21, 2011) – 18 namely, allowing Noble to proceed with her case but limiting recovery to the amount owed to 19 creditors such that Noble will personally receive nothing. The parties filed a timely joint 20 supplemental brief on October 31, 2011. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ 21 supplemental filing, the Court now VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for 22 November 7, 2011. 23 The parties now agree that the case can proceed with limited recovery, and FedEx’s 24 motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore DENIED. The parties further agree that 25 the amount of unsecured debt listed by Noble in her bankruptcy petition is $44,953.77, but 26 they have two areas of disagreement on the amount that Noble should be allowed to recover 27 1 After the motion was filed, Noble received permission from the bankruptcy court to 28 amend her petition and pursue this lawsuit. 1 in this case. First, they disagree on whether the full $7200 that the bankruptcy court ordered 2 Noble to pay pro tanto should be deducted from the amount of unsecured debt when 3 determining the limit to Noble’s recovery. As the Cannata court observed, “[n]either party 4 here is entitled to a windfall.” 2011 WL 2910112, at *9. In this case, it would be inequitable 5 to allow Noble to escape her obligations as ordered by the bankruptcy court based on 6 information Noble presented, including her failure to include this lawsuit as a potential asset. 7 Accordingly, the full $7200 should be deducted when determining an appropriate limit on 8 Noble’s damages. 9 Second, the parties disagree on whether the limit on Noble’s recovery should include 11 defendant who loses an employment discrimination case would ordinarily be liable for both For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 attorneys’ fees and costs under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). A 12 damages and any statutory attorneys’ fees and costs. FedEx is not entitled to a windfall by 13 virtue of Noble’s bankruptcy, and the cap on Noble’s recovery therefore should not include 14 statutory fees and costs. 15 In sum, as the parties now agree, this case may proceed despite Noble’s failure to 16 include this lawsuit as a potential asset in her original bankruptcy petition. Noble’s recovery 17 of damages shall be limited to $37,753.77 ($44,953.77 less $7,200.00). If the bankruptcy 18 trustee subsequently determines that any damages recovered are greater than the amount 19 necessary to repay Noble’s creditors, then the excess amount shall be returned to FedEx. If 20 Noble prevails in this case and is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs by statute, such fees 21 and costs may be awarded in addition to the maximum amount of recoverable damages. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 11/03/11 26 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?