Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Filing 624

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF PARTIES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/12/2016. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, LISA HARDIMAN, MIRIAM LEYVA, LORAINE NARANJO, ENDANG WIDJAJA, KEVIN TAYLOR, DEBRA DOYLE, CHRISTOPHER DUGGAN, HILARIO ESCOBAR, and all others similarly situated, 17 ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF PARTIES Plaintiffs, 15 16 Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB (ECF No. 621) v. TACO BELL CORP., and TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiffs Endang Widjaja, Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, 22 and Class Representatives Miriam Leyva, Sandrika Medlock, and Lisa 23 Hardiman’s (“Plaintiffs”) individual claims that are (1) not subject to dismissal 24 pursuant to the terms of a separate individual settlement agreement; (2) not 25 certified in this matter or being litigated on a representative basis; or (3) not listed 26 in the Second Supplemental Pretrial Order as those claims being tried are 27 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 28 2. The following individual claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended 1 1 Consolidated Complaint (“TACC”) (ECF No. 522) are DISMISSED WITH 2 PREJUDICE: 3 a. Overtime under California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; 4 5 b. c. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Third Claim for Relief for Unpaid Wages under Labor Code section 204; 8 9 Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Second Claim for Relief for Unpaid Minimum Wages under California Labor Code section 1194; 6 7 Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the First Claim for Relief for Unpaid d. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Fourth Claim for Relief for Failure to 10 Provide Meal Periods under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 (excluding the 11 certified claim for failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour 12 of work on shifts over six hours long); 13 e. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Fifth Claim for Relief for Failure to 14 Provide Rest Breaks under Labor Code section 226.7 (excluding the certified 15 claim for failure to authorize and permit a second rest break on shifts over six 16 hours but less than seven hours long); 17 f. Wage Statements under California Labor Code section 226(a); 18 19 Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Sixth Claim for Relief for Improper g. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Seventh Claim for Relief for 20 Unreimbursed Business Expenses under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 21 2802; 22 h. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Eighth Claim for Relief for Failure to 23 Pay Vested Accrued Vacation Time under California Labor Code section 227.3; 24 and 25 i. Plaintiffs’ individual claims asserted in the Ninth Claim for Relief for Non- 26 Payment of Wages at termination under Labor Code sections 201 and 202 (while 27 Defendants dispute whether Plaintiffs may seek penalties under Labor Code 28 section 203 as a remedy for the certified meal and rest period claims, this 2 1 dismissal does not include Plaintiffs’ allegation that Labor Code section 203 will 2 be sought as a class-wide remedy); 3. 3 The Court’s dismissal of the above claims in the Third Amended Consolidated 4 Complaint is subject to the Plaintiffs’ reservation of rights to appeal the Court’s 5 prior orders including, but not limited to, its orders regarding class certification of 6 any claims and the Court’s application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to 7 Plaintiffs’ claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, 8 California Labor Code section 2699 et seq.; and 4. 9 Neither Party is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and/or costs related to this dismissal. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 12, 2016 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?