Sidibe

Sidibe v. Sutter Health

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 20213:12-cv-04854California1,634 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco Division DJENEBA SIDIBE, et al., Case No. 12-cv-04854-LB

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

v. CLASS NOTICE

SUTTER HEALTH, Re: ECF No. 1162 Defendant. 16 The plaintiffs ask to issue a supplemental class notice to class members listed in four California counties (Mariposa, Monterey, San Benito, and Tulare) because the counties were omitted from the class notice.1 Sutter opposes the request because the four counties are not part of the class definition in the operative complaint (or in the four earlier complaints). Also, Sutter contends that the one-way intervention rule bars the supplemental notice after the court issued its summary-judgment order.2 The court held a hearing on August 26, 2021.3 The court denies the request for a supplemental notice, in part because the counties are not part of the class defined in the operative…

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.