Kalani v. Starbucks Corporation et al

Filing 129

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 110 . Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/16/2016. (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ROBERT KALANI,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 110
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Kalani’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief From

19

Judgment (“Motion”). ECF No. 110. On July 28, 2015, the Court entered a final Judgment in this

20

matter in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Defendant”). ECF No.

21

102. After Defendant’s notice of appeal from the Judgment was filed and docketed, Plaintiff filed

22

the instant Motion, which seeks to amend the Judgment to reflect the specific monetary and

23

injunctive relief granted by the Court’s February 25, 2015 Order Granting In Part and Denying In

24

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“February 25, 2015 Order”), see ECF No. 82, at

25

22, and July 28, 2015 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ECF No. 101, at 18–19.

26

Defendant opposed the Motion, ECF No. 113, and Plaintiff filed a Reply. ECF No. 114.

27
28

On January 29, 2016, the Court entered an Order Issuing Indicative Ruling on Motion for
1
Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

1

Relief From Judgment Under Rule 60(a) (“Indicative Ruling Order”). ECF No. 123. The Court

2

held that it could not correct the Judgment while a docketed appeal was pending, but that it would

3

likely grant Plaintiff’s Motion and amend the Judgment to include the specific relief provided by

4

the Court’s February 25, 2015 Order and July 28, 2015 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

5

if the case were remanded by the Court of Appeals. Indicative Ruling Order, at 4–5. The Court

6

also explained the specific form of amended judgment that it would enter on remand. Id., at 8.

7

On February 16, 2016, after receiving notice of this Court’s Indicative Ruling Order, the

8

Court of Appeals remanded this case “for the limited purpose of the district court issuing an order

9

on the plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment.” See Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 15-

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

16710, ECF No. 15, at 1 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2016).
Having considered the parties’ papers, the applicable law, and the record in this case, for

12

the reasons set forth in the Court’s Indicative Ruling Order, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

13

The Court will enter an Amended Judgment as set forth in the Indicative Ruling Order.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: February 16, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 13-CV-00734-LHK
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT