Ruiz

Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.

Good Law

622 F. Supp. 2d 908·2009 WL 941162·50 A.L.R. 6th 579·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28894

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 6, 2009Case 07-5739 SCCalifornia4,736 words

Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 13, 2009, Defendant Van-gent, Inc. (‘Vangent”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket No. 99 (“Vangent’s Motion”). On the same day, Defendant Gap, Inc. (“Gap”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket No. 100 (“Gap’s Motion”). On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff Joel Ruiz (“Plaintiff’ or “Ruiz”) filed an Opposition. Docket No. 104. On March 6, 2009, Gap submitted a Reply, and Vangent submitted a Reply. Docket Nos. 112, 116. For the reasons stated herein, Vangent’s Motion is GRANTED and Gap’s Motion is GRANTED.

Various other motions have been filed, including Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, Gap’s Request for Judicial Notice, Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice, and Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Objections to Plaintiffs Expert Reports. See Docket Nos. 92, 102, 106, 114. Defendants filed a Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice. Docket No. 115. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and Plaintiff did so on March 16, 2009. See Docket Nos. 120, 121. The Court GRANTS Gap’s Request for Judicial Notice, and the…

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.