Butterworth v. American Eagle Outfitters #00068
Filing
43
Stipulation to Stay Case, Vacate All Hearings and Deadlines, and Dismiss Plaintiff Margo Chui, Without Prejudice; and ORDER Thereon, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/25/2012. CASE STAYED. (Marrujo, C)
6
Raul Perez (SBN 174687)
RPerez@InitiativeLegal.com
Melissa Grant (SBN 205633)
MGrant@InitiativeLegal.com
Suzy E. Lee (SBN 271120)
SuzyLee@InitiativeLegal.com
Initiative Legal Group APC
1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-5637
Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian Butterworth and Margo Chui
8
Michael Leggieri (SBN 253791)
mleggieri@littler.com
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
500 Capital Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916.830.7200
Facsimile: 916.561.0828
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Lee J. Hutton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
lhutton@littler.com
Timothy S. Anderson (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
tanderson@littler.com
1100 Superior Avenue, 20th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: 216.696.7600
Facsimile: 216.696.2038
Attorneys for Defendant AE Retail West
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—FRESNO DIVISION
20
21
22
BRIAN BUTTERWORTH and
MARGO CHUI, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated,
23
24
25
Plaintiff,
vs.
26
AE RETAIL WEST, a Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
27
Case No.: 1:11−CV−01203−LJO−DLB
Hon. Dennis L. Beck,
U.S. Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE,
VACATE ALL HEARINGS AND
DEADLINES, AND DISMISS
PLAINTIFF MARGO CHUI,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Defendants.
28
Complaint Filed: May 12, 2011
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE, ETC.; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Plaintiffs Brian Butterworth and Margo Chui and Defendant AE Retail
1
2
West (collectively, “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, HEREBY
3
STIPULATE, subject to approval of the Court, as follows:
4
WHEREAS, on or about May 12, 2011, in Stanislaus County Superior
5
Court, Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging various California wage and hour
6
violations (“Butterworth Action”);
7
8
WHEREAS, on or about July 2011, Plaintiffs’ action was removed to this
Court;
9
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2011, the Honorable Magistrate Judge
10
Dennis L. Beck adopted the following dates and deadlines for Plaintiffs’ Motion
11
for Class Certification:
12
Filing:
13
Opposition: August 14, 2012
14
Reply:
September 28, 2012
15
Hearing:
October 30, 2012
16
WHEREAS, a related case against the same Defendant was filed by
17
another former employee, Jared Bercea, in the Sacramento County Superior Court,
18
Case No. 34-2012-00123947 (“Bercea Action”);
19
20
June 29, 2012
WHEREAS, the Parties have reached a global settlement in principle of
the Bercea Action that would release the claims asserted in this action;
21
WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy, and as part of the
22
settlement process, the Parties have agreed to permit the Plaintiff in the Bercea
23
Action to amend the complaint in the Bercea Action to add Margo Chui as a
24
plaintiff in the Bercea Action, and the Parties have agreed to dismiss Margo Chi,
25
without prejudice, as a plaintiff in this action;
26
WHEREAS, the Parties have also agreed to seek approval of the global
27
settlement in the Bercea Action, which is pending in Sacramento County Superior
28
Court;
Page 1
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE, ETC.; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
1
WHEREAS, in the event that final approval of the global settlement is
2
granted by the Sacramento County Superior Court, this action will be dismissed
3
with prejudice and the Bercea Action will be dismissed with prejudice;
4
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that the above-entitled action should be
5
stayed, and all dates, deadlines, hearings and other events should be vacated,
6
pending the outcome of the approval process in the Bercea action, and the parties
7
should stipulate to dismiss Margo Chui, without prejudice, from this action;
8
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate as follows:
9
1.
outcome of the approval process in the Bercea Action;
10
11
The Court should stay the above-entitled action pending the
2.
The Court should vacate all dates, deadlines and hearings and other
12
events currently on calendar, including the dates and deadlines
13
which govern Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification; and
14
3.
Plaintiff Margo Chui should be dismissed, without prejudice.
15
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE, ETC.; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
1
Dated: May 25, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
2
3
By:
4
5
6
/s/ Raul Perez
Raul Perez
Melissa Grant
Suzy E. Lee
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian
Butterworth and Margo Chui
7
8
9
Dated: May 25, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
10
LITTLER MENDELSON LLP
11
12
By:
13
/s/ Lee J. Hutton
Lee J. Hutton
Timothy S. Anderson
14
Attorneys for Defendant AE Retail West
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE, ETC.; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
1
2
ORDER
The Court has received, reviewed and considered the Stipulation to Stay
3
Case and Vacate All Hearings and Deadlines. Good cause appearing, it is hereby
4
ORDERED that:
5
1.
The Court stays the above-entitled action pending the outcome of
6
the approval process in the Bercea Action, which is pending in the
7
Sacramento County Superior Court.
8
2.
currently on calendar, including the dates and deadlines which
9
govern Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
10
11
The Court vacates all dates, deadlines and hearings and other events
3.
The Court dismisses Margo Chui, without prejudice.This Court
12
FURTHER ORDERS the parties, no later than July 2, 2012, and
13
every 90 days thereafter, to file joint status reports to address
14
completion of settlement of the Bercea action and the need to
15
continue stay of this action.
16
17
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
May 25, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D E A C_ Sig n a tu r e - E N D :
66h44d
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 1
ORDER
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?