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)

Download PDF
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?