Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Filing 698

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE THEIR RULE 50(b) MOTION PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL RULES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/10/2016. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR
ACTIONS

Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
NOTICE THEIR RULE 50(b) MOTION
PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL RULES

13
14

(ECF Nos. 693)

15
16
17

A jury trial in this class action commenced on February 22, 2016. On March 7, 2016,

18 Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal
19 Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 685.) On March 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
20 the motion. (ECF NO. 686.) The Court took the motion under submission pending a verdict
21 from the jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff for one of the
22 classes. The parties were provided with the opportunity to file a supplement to their Rule 50
23 motion and opposition.
24

On March 9, 2016, instead of filing a supplement to the Rule 50(a) motion, Defendants

25 filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal
26 Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 693.) Rule 230(b) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District
27 Court requires that all motions must be noticed and the matter must be heard not less than twenty
28 eight days after service and filing of the motion. The Court finds that the motion filed March 9,

1

1 2016 is not a supplement to the Rule 50(a), but a new motion as it is based on new facts, the
2 verdict returned by the jury. Therefore, Defendants must comply with the requirements of the
3 Local Rule or file a request for the motion to be heard on shortened time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file a noticed Rule 50(b)

4

5 motion in compliance with the Local Rules. Plaintiffs are advised that the Court will only
6 consider any supplemental filing as it applies to the Rule 50(a) motion filed on March 7, 2016.
7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the March 11, 2016 hearing shall only address Defendants’
8 Rule 50(a) motion, absent a stipulation of the parties that the Rule 50(b) can be heard on March
9 11. If such stipulation is executed, then the Plaintiffs shall file any opposition to such motion by
10 the deadlines previously set for filing their opposition to the Rule 50(a) motion.
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated:

March 10, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2