Leggett et al v. Cooperative Personnel Services

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/15/10 ORDERING that the parties shall inform the court by 6/21/10 as to whether deft's board has allowed the case to proceed to mediation and, if so, the expected time to complete discovery. The court shall set a scheduling conference after it receives parties' status report. (Owen, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY LEGGETT, MICHAEL BORTON, LESANN DORFLER, 11 AIMEE UHLER, on behalf of themselves and others 12 similarly situated, NO. CIV. S-09-1253 LKK/KJM 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL 16 SERVICES, d/b/a CPS HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES, 17 Defendants. 18 / 19 20 At issue in this case is whether plaintiffs, who are former ORDER

21 employees of defendant, were misclassified as exempt employees in 22 violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pursuant to court order, 23 many plaintiffs have opted in to this action. Currently, this case 24 involves forty-one (41) named and opt-in plaintiffs. These

25 plaintiffs reside in seventeen (17) states across the country. 26 Due to the complex nature of this case, the court has not 1

1 entered a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling order. Rather, the court 2 has referred this matter to the magistrate judge to conduct

3 discovery and has required the parties to submit several status 4 reports to the court. 5 On May 26, 2010, the parties submitted a joint status report.

6 This status report stated that the parties are seeking mediation of 7 the action. Mediation cannot proceed without approval from

8 defendant's board. In light of this requirement, the parties 9 request that the court postpone setting a scheduling conference 10 until after the parties can determine whether the case will proceed 11 in mediation. Specifically, the parties indicate that they will 12 inform the court on or before June 21, 2010 as to whether

13 defendant's board will allow the case to proceed to mediation. If 14 the board approves mediation, the parties request that the court 15 stay the scheduling conference pending the conclusion of the 16 mediation. The parties note that the mediation may be difficult to 17 schedule due to the number and location of the plaintiffs. If the 18 board declines to allow the case to proceed to mediation, the 19 parties request that the court set a scheduling conference shortly 20 thereafter. 21 22 23 24 25 26 (2) For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: (1) The parties shall inform the court by June 21, 2010 as to whether defendant's board has allowed the case to proceed to mediation and, if so, the expected time to complete discovery. The court shall set a scheduling conference after it 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

receives the parties' status report. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 15, 2010.

3