Beard v. International Business Machines Corporation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JEROME BEARD, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 18-06783 WHA 12 v. 13 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MACHINES CORPORATION, JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 14 Defendant. 15 / 16 INTRODUCTION 17 In this employment dispute, plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings. For the 18 19 reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. STATEMENT 20 A prior order provided the facts in full (Dkt. No. 51). In brief, plaintiff Jerome Beard 21 has worked as a software sales representative at defendant International Business Machines 22 Corporation since 1983. IBM paid Beard a salary plus uncapped commissions during his 23 employment. IBM would assign Beard a revenue target and tie his commission compensation 24 to a percentage of the target attained. 25 In July 2017, Beard received an “incentive plan letter” (IPL) from IBM that described 26 his commission plan for the rest of 2017 and set his sales quota at $934,736 (Dkt. No. 30-1). 27 He also received and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that repeatedly stated that payments 28 1 |] under the compensation plan would be uncapped. Furthermore, the PowerPoint stated that the IPL was the “primary 2017 education for IBM sales employees” and “[i]t covers the information 3 || you will need to understand your 2017 plan.” In 2017, Beard closed two large deals that generated $25.2 million in revenue subject to commission. Beard alleges that he earned 5 |} $2,901,806 in commission based on these amounts, but IBM refused to pay full commission because it “was simply too much money to pay” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5—9). 7 In November 2018, Beard filed this civil action asserting (1) violation of California’ □ 8 || Labor Code Sections 2751 and 221, (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), 9}| (3) race discrimination, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (6) negligent 10 || misrepresentation. In April 2019, an order granted in part and denied in part IBM’s motion to 11 || dismiss Beard’s claims (Dkt. No. 51). Beard now moves for judgment on the pleadings against IBM under his second claim for relief alleging a UCL violation. This order follows full briefing 3 13 || and oral argument. 14 ANALYSIS 5 15 “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material fact 16 || in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and footnote omitted). Although Beard began 18 || working at IBM before California’s Labor Code Section 2751 came into effect, the statute still applies. There is a question of material fact, however, about whether or not the IPL is a contract. 20 || Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. 21 CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated above, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 pr A| 26 |} Dated: December 20, 2019. (A= WILLIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28