Hill v. Xerox Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:12-cv-00717
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of CASE NO. C12-0717-JCC all persons similarly situated, 10 MINUTE ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) confers authority upon a district court to issue 18 summary judgment on grounds independent of any motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P 56(f). Indeed, a 19 court may “grant summary judgment for a nonmovant” or “consider summary judgment on its 20 own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute” so long 21 as it gives notice to the parties and provides them with a reasonable time to respond. Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 56(f)(1), (3). Accordingly, the Court hereby notifies the parties it is considering Rule 56(f) 23 judgment on the issue of Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”) compliance in Plaintiff’s favor. 24 Such consideration is warranted here because Plaintiff has not moved for summary 25 judgment on the issue of compliance. (See generally Dkt. No. 241.) And, as Defendants correctly 26 1 note, the Court has not yet decided the issue of compliance. (See Dkt. Nos. 248 at 11–14, 254 at 2 6–7.) Nevertheless, that issue is now ripe for review and, in fact, critical to the disposition of 3 damages—another issue for which both parties have moved. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 241, 248.) 4 Indeed, both parties and the Court all concede that the expert reports provide 5 comprehensive factual findings on the issue of compliance. (See Dkt. Nos. 221 at 10, 241 at 6, 6 254 at 7.) And both parties have now submitted their respective expert reports to the Court. (See 7 Dkt. Nos. 243-2, 246.) Critically, both reports acknowledge that Defendants owe some amount 8 of damages. (See generally Dkt. No. 243-2; see also Dkt. No. 246 at 14) (Dr. Boedeker’s report 9 admits that Defendants owe, at a very minimum, $188,912.50). Thus, if experts for all parties 10 concede the class is entitled to at least some damages, there is no genuine dispute of material fact 11 as to Defendants’ compliance with the MWA—after all, the damages represent Defendants’ 12 underpayments of the minimum wage. As such, in theory, the Court has all the evidence it needs 13 to issue judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the issue of compliance, regardless of whether or not 14 Plaintiff has so moved. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1), see also Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 15 1177 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that summary judgment in favor of non-movant was warranted 16 where movants had full opportunity and incentive to gather evidence on the issue for which they 17 sought summary judgment).1 18 Should the parties so choose, they may each submit a brief not to exceed 1,500 words 19 responding to this notice. The parties must submit said briefs on or before Friday, February 28, 20 2025. To that end, the Court RENOTES the cross-motions for summary judgment and Daubert 21 motions (Dkt. Nos. 240, 241, 244) to February 28, 2025. 22 // 23

24 1 That said, in issuing this notice, the Court must clarify that it has not yet decided the admissibility of each party’s respective expert report. Whether the Court grants or denies the 25 parties’ Daubert motions may, of course, change the calculus here. Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to notify the parties of its potential consideration as soon as practicable and offer 26 them an opportunity to respond. 1 DATED this 20th day of February 2025. Ravi Subramanian 2 Clerk of Court 3 s/Kathleen Albert 4 Deputy Clerk 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26