Lett

Lett v. Paymentech, Inc.

Good Law

2000 Daily Journal DAR 3113·81 F. Supp. 2d 992·1999 WL 1293710·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20315

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 12, 1999C99-2423 MJJCalifornia5,763 words

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are defendant Pay-mentech’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (Féd.R.Civ.P.12(c)), and motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action (Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)). Paymentech challenges the constitutionality of two sections of the California Labor Code asserted against it by Valerie Lett (“Lett”), which pertain to companies without a permanent and fixed place of business within the State of California. For the reasons outlined in this memorandum and order, the Court GRANTS IN PART Paymentech’s motion, finding that Sections 2751 and 2752 of the California Labor Code are violative of both the Commerce Clause and of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and that Lett’s claim for violation of public policy is not legally cognizable; and DENIES IN PART Paymentech’s motion, finding that Lett’s breach of implied covenant claim survives a motion to dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Valerie Lett was a sales representative for Paymentech and its corporate predecessors-in-interest from 1993 until 1998. During her…

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.