Martel

Martel v. Hearst Communications, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 25, 20203:19-cv-02715California3,768 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MARTEL, Plaintiff, No. C 19-02715 WHA

v.

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.

15 INTRODUCTION In this individual wage-and-hour action, both parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. STATEMENT Plaintiff Paul Martel delivers newspapers for the San Francisco Chronicle. Defendant Hearst Communications, Inc. is a media company that, among other things, owns and manages the distribution of the Chronicle throughout Northern California. Plaintiff has been delivering the Chronicle since the 1980s, first, for the San Francisco Newspaper Agency and then for Hearst when it purchased the Chronicle. In 2008, however, plaintiff signed a new contract with Hearst and transitioned from a newspaper “carrier” role to a…

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.