Filed: Jul. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the status conference held on July 8, 2019, a hearing is set on defendants' motion for summary judgment for November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The motion and supporting documents shall be filed by September 27, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed by October 28, 2019, and any reply briefs shall be filed by November 4, 2019. The motion shall address the following issues: (1) the cons
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the status conference held on July 8, 2019, a hearing is set on defendants' motion for summary judgment for November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The motion and supporting documents shall be filed by September 27, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed by October 28, 2019, and any reply briefs shall be filed by November 4, 2019. The motion shall address the following issues: (1) the const..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the status conference held on July 8, 2019, a hearing is set on defendants' motion for summary judgment for November 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The motion and supporting documents shall be filed by September 27, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed by October 28, 2019, and any reply briefs shall be filed by November 4, 2019.
The motion shall address the following issues: (1) the constitutionality of sections 1152, 1153, 1157.12(b), and other related provisions of the California Government Code that prevent public employees or public employers from halting payroll deduction of union fees from an employee's wages unless and until the union instructs the employer to do; (2) the validity of plaintiffs' union membership agreements in light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018); and (3) the union defendants' status as state actors for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After a decision on the motion for summary judgment, the court will set a further scheduling conference in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
