Case Briefing Vizcaino V. Us Dist. Court for Wd of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)
Topics: Appeal, Habeas corpus, Appellate court / Pages: 7 (1706 words) / Published: Feb 9th, 2013

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

Material Facts: Donna Vizcaino, Jon R. Waite, Mark Stout, Geoffrey Culbert, Lesley Stuart, Thomas Morgan, Elizabeth Spokoiny, and Larry Spokoiny sued on behalf of themselves and a court certified class against Microsoft Corporation and its various pension and welfare plans, including its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP), and sought a determination that they were entitled even as independent contractors to participate in the plan benefits because those benefits were available to Microsoft 's common law employees. Procedural History:
The Plaintiffs filed action against Microsoft Corp. for inclusion in Microsoft’s employee benefit plans. The district court denied the plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment while granting Microsoft 's.
The plaintiff’s appealed the district court’s decision and the appeal’s court reversed the district court’s judgment for Microsoft and remanded for determination of any remaining issues regarding the rights of a particular worker.
On remand the district court issued its “Order Regarding Scope of Remand.” It denied Microsoft’s motion for clarification of the composition of the class, rejecting its contention that the class definition excluded those who were temps and whose claims arose post conversion. The court concluded that the class would remain as defined. Microsoft renewed its motion to amend the class certification asking the court to “certify subclasses for the question of who is a common law employee.”
The district court denied the motion but “clarified” the employee class definition, limiting the class to specific workers (independent contractor). The district court also granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff’s.
Plaintiff’s filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued a further “Order Regarding Motion to Revise” granting the motion in part and denying in part. The court denied

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Us V. Warshak 631 F. 3d 266
  • Case Analysis: Pryor V. Ncaa, 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002)
  • U.S. V. Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000)
  • Specht V. Netscape Communication Corporation, 306 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002) Case Brief
  • Us. V. Nixon Court Case
  • Ang Tibay v. CIR
  • Eeoc V. Wc&M Enterprises, Inc., 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. August 10, 2007)
  • Case Briefing
  • Supreme Court Case: US V. Calandra 1974
  • Katz V. US Supreme Court Case Study