Salazar et al v. McDonald's Corp. et al

Filing 256

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg ORDER DENYING 251 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND GRANTING 253 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02096-RS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

MCDONALD'S CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Defendants McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s USA, LLC (“McDonalds”) filed a

13
motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2016. That motion was granted in part and denied in
14
part on August 16, 2016. Notably, Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed with their California Labor
15
Code claims under an ostensible agency theory. Without seeking leave to file a successive motion
16
or a motion for reconsideration, McDonalds filed a second motion for summary judgment on
17

November 18, 2016. Therein, McDonalds argues that “Plaintiffs’ theory of ostensible agency is

18
insufficient as a matter of law to support claims brought under the California Labor Code.” Dkt.
19
No. 251 at 2. This second motion appears to present arguments that could have been raised in the
20
first motion for summary judgment. For this reason, Plaintiffs now move summarily to deny
21
McDonalds’ motion.
22
As McDonalds’ motion appears to be based on previously available evidence, McDonalds’
23
second motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. If McDonalds wishes to refile
24
its motion, it must first request leave to do so. In such request, McDonalds should state why its
25
motion is not based on previously available evidence and explain why the motion should not be
26
deemed a motion for reconsideration.
27
28

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: November 21, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-cv-02096-RS

28
2