Erichs

Erichs v. Venator Group, Inc.

Good Law
128 F. Supp. 2d 1255·2001 WL 96081
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2001C 98-2981 SBACalifornia4,696 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues Related to Named California Plaintiffs [# 81-1]. The Court conducted a telephonic hearing with the parties on April 24, 2000. Based on its review of the issues after the hearing, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on June 9, 2000. Having now read and considered all the papers submitted in connection with this motion and the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication.

I. BACKGROUND

California plaintiffs Vicki Flaxman, Jen-ee Gesehwind, and Armida Montellano worked as store managers for Kinney Shoe Corporation in California. Venator Group Retail, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Venator Group, Inc., operates Lady Footlocker and Kinney Shoe. Lady Footlocker and Kinney Shoe participate in the retail sale of shoes and related accessories.

Beginning on April 1, 1995, Kinney instituted a commission pay plan (“the Plan”) for its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.