Vedachalam v. Tata America International Corporation et al
Filing
301
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken denying without prejudice #281 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, granting Defendants' #288 Motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) and setting further case management conference (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
GOPI VEDACHALAM and KANGANA BERI,
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
v.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,
an Indian Corporation; and TATA
SONS, LTD, an Indian Corporation,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Defendants.
________________________________/
No. C 06-0963 CW
ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND
GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
PURSUANT TO RULE
56(D) (Docket Nos.
281 and 288) AND
SETTING FURTHER
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
12
Plaintiffs Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri move for partial
13
summary judgment on behalf of the National and California classes
14
against Defendants Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons,
15
Ltd.
16
partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
17
Procedure 56(d).
18
Defendants move to stay or deny Plaintiffs’ motion for
Having considered the parties’ papers, the Court GRANTS
19
Defendants’ Rule 56(d) motion and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for
20
partial summary judgment without prejudice to re-filing when both
21
parties are prepared to file cross-motions for summary judgment.
22
Rule 56(d) “should be applied with a spirit of liberality” to
23
prevent injustice to the party facing summary judgment.
Buchanan
24
v. Stanships, Inc., 744 F.2d 1070, 1074 (5th Cir. 1984).
Here,
25
Defendants have identified certain extrinsic evidence that may be
26
relevant to show whether the contract is reasonably susceptible of
27
the meaning that they urge, which the Court must provisionally
28
receive under California law.
See First Nat’l Mortg. Co. v. Fed.
1
Realty Inv. Trust, 631 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011).
2
Defendants have also identified evidence which may be relevant to
3
their affirmative defenses.
4
this case for a period of time and discovery was not formally
5
bifurcated, it is reasonable that the parties focused first on
6
discovery relevant to class certification prior to the Court’s
7
resolution of that issue, and shifted their focus to merits
8
discovery after the Court issued its order certifying classes to
9
prosecute certain claims in this case.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
While discovery has been underway in
Further, the Court notes that, were it to consider the merits
11
of Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment at this time,
12
the state of the record at this time would incline the Court to
13
deny the motion, at least in part.
14
Defendants’ “practice was to deduct the amount of the employees’
15
Indian salary from their gross U.S. compensation every month,”
16
Mot. at 6, there appears to be a material dispute of fact as to
17
whether Defendants deducted employees’ Indian salary from their
18
gross United States compensation or from their total gross
19
compensation, and whether the latter practice was authorized by
20
the employment contracts.
21
While Plaintiffs assert that
The Court sets a further case management conference for
22
August 29, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. to set the remaining dates in this
23
case.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
Dated: August 3, 2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
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?
