From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Sep 21, 2010
Case No. C-09-01987-CW (N.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding no triable issue of whether operations manager was a managing agent, although he was "in charge of 6 divisions, 23 package centers and approximately 40 managers, 150 supervisors and 4,200 employees," without additional evidence that he set corporate policy

Summary of this case from Haynes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

Case No. C-09-01987-CW.

September 21, 2010

Stephen R. Jaffe SBN 49539, The Jaffe Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, Attorney for Plaintiff KIM MUNIZ.

ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION TO ENTER FEDERAL COURTHOUSE BUILDING WITH FOOD AND BEVERAGES

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge

TO: UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE:

IT IS ORDERED that the jurors, alternate jurors, parties, attorneys and attorneys' staff in the above-entitled case, presently in trial in Courtroom 2 of the United States District Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, shall be permitted to bring food, candy and beverages into the Courthouse during the pendency of the trial.

The parties to the trial are KIM MUNIZ and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (represented by Brian Davis). The law firms representing the parties are THE JAFFE LAW FIRM (Stephen R. Jaffe, Daniel A Zaheer and Susan D. Jaffe) and PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY WALKER LLP (Elena Baca and Ryan Hess)

Dated: 9/21/2010

Summaries of

Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Sep 21, 2010
Case No. C-09-01987-CW (N.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2010)

finding no triable issue of whether operations manager was a managing agent, although he was "in charge of 6 divisions, 23 package centers and approximately 40 managers, 150 supervisors and 4,200 employees," without additional evidence that he set corporate policy

Summary of this case from Haynes v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

setting out the standard for retaliation claims under Cal. Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5

Summary of this case from Pinder v. Emp't Dev. Dep't

describing a claim for "'Wrongful Employment Practices in Violation of Public Policy,' which is often referred to as a Tameny claim"

Summary of this case from Weingand v. Harland Fin. Solutions, Inc.

In Muniz v. United Parcel Service, 731 F.Supp.2d 961 (N.D. Cal. 2010), the district court adopted the Tenth Circuit's holding that an employee's conduct "was not protected activity [under the Fair Labor Standards Act] because she was `merely performing her everyday duties as personnel director for the company,'" and "she did not take `some action adverse to the company,'" which is "`the hallmark of protected activity.'"

Summary of this case from James-England v. United Insurance Company of America

In Muniz, in contrast, the plaintiff testified that reporting wage and hour violations — her alleged protected activity — was a part of her job duties.

Summary of this case from James-England v. United Insurance Company of America
Case details for

Muniz v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KIM MUNIZ, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Sep 21, 2010

Citations

Case No. C-09-01987-CW (N.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2010)

Citing Cases

Weingand v. Harland Fin. Solutions, Inc.

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for common law wrongful termination in violation…

Russo v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S.

The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of defendants on issues 11 and 12. As to issue 11, the…

13 Citing Cases