Supurva Healthcare Group Inc (SPRV)

[LoanRangerTX]

*Sigh*

Very well let me be 100% Clear.

The Document referenced was from the following location:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8157456/56/acosta-v-tforce-final-mile-llc/

Please Note that this is not from Pacer.

From this post:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145351585

The logic is that the title of the document is as follows:

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Legal Definations of Relief can be found here (I hate using Wiki and UsLegal but for now it will do):

https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/relief/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_remedy

From UsLegal:

Relief may include an award of money, an injunction ordering a party to stop an action, a declaration of a party's rights under a contract, granting a lien against a debtor's property, and many more forms of relief.

The following is an example of a state statute dealing with relief from judgement:

"(A) Relief from Judgement. A Motion to Amend or for relief from judgement, including a request for a new trial shall be made within ten (10) calendar days of the filing of judgement. The Motion must be based on an error or irregularity which prevented a party from receiving a fair trial or a substantial legal error which affected the outcome of the action."

The Document clearly explains that the Relief was seeking from a PreTrial Order or An Order from the sitting Judge to produce documents.

The dispute is whether TForce must produce documents related to any drivers it may have

23 directly hired to deliver packages for Google Express, as opposed to only those drivers that were

24 hired by On Courier, which TForce contends it engaged as an “independent service provider.”

25 The challenged order requires TForce to produce responsive documents both as to drivers hired

26 through On Courier and as to any drivers TForce may have directly hired for the Google Express

27 service.

The "order to deny relief" is as follows:

A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if

16 the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.

17 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Because TForce has

18 shown no such error here, its objections to the order are overruled.

So by reading the last line "shown no such error here, its objections to the order are overruled." it shows that the document is a rejection of TForce's argument.

The Court Case is proceeding into a settlement conference, meaning the parties will have talks about a settlement. Not that the settlement will happen or has occurred.

Finally in being 100% transparent here is the complete document posted in the original post. Please read all the way through.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
10 Case No. 17-cv-06624-RS
Plaintiff,
11
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
12 RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
Northern District of California
United States District Court




TFORCE FINAL MILE, LLC, et al., PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
13 JUDGE
Defendants.
14

15

16 Defendant TForce Final Mile West, LLC challenges one portion of the assigned magistrate

17 judge’s “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of

18 Documents,” dated October 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 51). Plaintiff in this action is the Secretary of the

19 Department of Labor. Defendants are TForce and On Courier 365, Inc. The complaint seeks to

20 impose liability on defendants for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to

21 drivers hired to deliver packages for the “Google Express” service.

22 The dispute is whether TForce must produce documents related to any drivers it may have

23 directly hired to deliver packages for Google Express, as opposed to only those drivers that were

24 hired by On Courier, which TForce contends it engaged as an “independent service provider.”

25 The challenged order requires TForce to produce responsive documents both as to drivers hired

26 through On Courier and as to any drivers TForce may have directly hired for the Google Express

27 service.

28 The parties agree, and the magistrate judge’s order acknowledges, that the scope of
 1 discovery is controlled by the allegations of the complaint. TForce insists the complaint only

2 alleges FLSA violations with respect to drivers hired under its relationship with On Courier, and

3 that the magistrate judge therefore erred in ordering production of documents related to any

4 drivers it may have directly hired to do Google Express deliveries. TForce is not wrong that the

5 primary focus of the complaint is on drivers as to whom TForce and On Courier are alleged to

6 have been joint employers. The language of the complaint, however, is broad enough also to

7 encompass claims arising from TForce’s direct hire of drivers for Google Express deliveries.

8 If plaintiff were seeking documents relating to drivers hired jointly by TForce and some

9 other “independent service provider,” TForce might have a strong argument that because the

10 complaint only mentions On Courier, it does not encompass claims relating to drivers hired

11 through such other entity, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The

12 complaint, however, plainly alleges hiring by both TForce and On Courier, and the emphasis on
Northern District of California
United States District Court




13 the scenario of drivers being hired by TForce through On Courier does not somehow exclude any

14 circumstances where TForce hired directly.

15 A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if

16 the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.

17 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Because TForce has

18 shown no such error here, its objections to the order are overruled.

19

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: November 8, 2018

23 ______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
24 United States District Judge
25

26
27

28
CASE NO. 17-cv-06624-RS
2