Bicek v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. et al

Filing 110

STIPULATION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/21/16. The parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Plaintiff Dennis Bicek's individual claims shall be dismissed w ith prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 81 ]; 2. Plaintiff Jose Chan's individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fee s and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 92 ]]; 3. Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez' individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 89 ]; 4. Plai ntiff Eugene Geerlof's individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 86 ]; 5. Plaintiff Bradley Moore's individual claims shall be dismi ssed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 85 ]; 6. Plaintiff Benjamin Tilos, Jr.'s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and ful l release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 87 ]; 7. Plaintiff Sean Roberts' individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document [ 88]]; 8. Plaintiff Timothy Rausches' individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 83 ]; 9. Plaintiff Sue Gunter's individual claims sh all be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 82 ]; 10. Plaintiff Manuel Valdes Jr.'s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiv er and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 93 ]; 11. Plaintiff James E. Woerhle's individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, [Document 84 ]; 12. Each party agrees to bear its own fees and costs related to this matter. CASE CLOSED (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Jon D. Meer (SBN 144389) jmeer@seyfarth.com Casey J.T McCoy (SBN 229106) cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com Michael Afar (SBN 298990) mafar@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 551-8324 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Julie G. Yap (SBN 243450) jyap@seyfarth.com 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, California 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-48399 Attorneys for Defendants C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC. and TRACY LOGISTICS, LLC 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 18 DENNIS BICEK; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), 19 Plaintiff, 17 20 21 22 23 v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., a Vermont corporation; TRACY LOGISTICS, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,, Case No. 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(A)(1)(A)(II) REGARDING PLAINTIFFS BICEK, CHAN, ALVAREZ, GEERLOF, MOORE, TILOS, ROBERTS, RAUSCHE, GUNTER, VALDES, AND WOEHRLE AND ORDER Before The Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(A)(1)(A)(II) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 2 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(A)(1)(A)(II) 3 Plaintiffs Dennis Bicek, Jose Chan, Jesus Alvarez, Eugene Geerlof, Bradley 4 Moore, Benjamin Tilos, Jr., Sean Roberts, Timothy Rausch, Sue Gunter, Manuel Valdes, 5 Jr., and James E. Woehrle (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant C&S Wholesale 6 Grocers, Inc. and Tracy Logistics, LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their respective 7 counsel of record, agree as follows: WHEREAS, on or about December 10, 2012, Plaintiff Dennis Bicek filed a 8 9 putative class action complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of 10 California for the County of Sacramento, Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., 11 Case No. 34-2012-00136674, alleging state law claims for unpaid overtime wages, 12 unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, 13 wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to 14 keep requisite payroll records, and violations of the California Business and Professions 15 Code § 17200, et seq.. On February 28, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the 16 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California based on diversity of 17 citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and under the Class Action Fairness 18 Act. 19 WHEREAS, on or about July 18, 2013, Plaintiff Jose Chan filed a Complaint in 20 the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California in Chan v. C&S 21 Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Case No. BC515593, alleging state law claims for unpaid 22 overtime wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid 23 minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage 24 statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and 25 violations of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.. On August 26 29, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States District Court for the 27 Central District of California based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 28 2 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On October 11, 2013, on Defendants’ motion, the matter was 2 transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. WHEREAS, on or about July 19, 2013, Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez filed a Complaint 3 4 in the San Joaquin County Superior Court of the State of California in Alvarez v. C&S 5 Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Case No. 39-2013-00299543, alleging state law claims 6 for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, 7 unpaid minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage 8 statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and 9 violations of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.. On August 10 29, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States District Court for the 11 Eastern District of California based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 12 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 13 WHEREAS, on or about July 30, 2013, Plaintiffs Eugene Geerlof, Bradley 14 Moore, Benjamin Tilos, Jr., Sean Roberts, Timothy Rausch, Sue Gunter, Manuel Valdes, 15 Jr., and James E. Woehrle filed a complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of 16 the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in Geerlof, et al. v. C&S Wholesale 17 Grocers, Inc., et al., alleging claims under the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime 18 wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum 19 wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, 20 failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and violations 21 of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Case No. BC516796 22 (“Action”). On September 6, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States 23 District Court for the Central District of California based on diversity of citizenship 24 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On October 11, 2013, on Defendants’ motion, 25 the matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 26 California. 27 /// 28 3 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 2 3 WHEREAS, on April 14, 2014, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order, granting Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification [Document No. 67]. WHEREAS, on June 25, 2014, Chan v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 4 2:13-cv-02140; Alvarez v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01798; Payne 5 v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02153; and Geerlof v. C&S Wholesale 6 Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02175, were consolidated with the litigation entitled, 7 Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00411 (“Consolidated Action”) 8 [Document No. 76]. 9 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Bicek served, by mail, 10 a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 11 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 12 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 13 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 14 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 15 and proof of service [Document No. 81]. 16 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Gunter served, by mail, 17 a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 18 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 19 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 20 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 21 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 22 and proof of service [Document No. 82]. 23 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Rausche served, by 24 mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 25 Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 26 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 27 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 28 4 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 2 and proof of service [Document No. 83]. 3 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Woehrle served, by 4 mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 5 Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 6 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 7 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 8 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 9 and proof of service [Document No. 84]. 10 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Moore served, by mail, 11 a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 12 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 13 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 14 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 15 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 16 and proof of service [Document No. 85]. 17 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Geerlof served, by 18 mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 19 Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 20 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 21 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 22 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 23 and proof of service [Document No. 86]. 24 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Tilos served, by mail, a 25 statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 26 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 27 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 28 5 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 2 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 3 and proof of service [Document No. 87]. 4 WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Roberts served, by 5 mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 6 Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 7 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 8 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 9 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 10 11 and proof of service [Document No. 88]. WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Alvarez served, by 12 mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 13 Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 14 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 15 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 16 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 17 and proof of service [Document No. 89]. 18 WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014, Plaintiff Chan served, by mail, a 19 statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 20 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 21 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 22 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 23 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on January 14, 2015, including the offer, acceptance, 24 and proof of service [Document No. 92]. 25 WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014, Plaintiff Valdes served, by mail, 26 a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 27 Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 28 6 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 2 timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 3 of Accepted Offer of Judgment on January 14, 2015, including the offer, acceptance, 4 and proof of service [Document No. 93]. 5 6 7 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plaintiff Dennis Bicek’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 8 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 9 Defendants, [Document 81]; 10 2. Plaintiff Jose Chan’s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in 11 exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, 12 [Document 92]; 13 3. Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 14 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 15 Defendants, [Document 89]; 16 4. Plaintiff Eugene Geerlof’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 17 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 18 Defendants, [Document 86]; 19 5. Plaintiff Bradley Moore’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 20 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 21 Defendants, [Document 85]; 22 6. Plaintiff Benjamin Tilos, Jr.’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 23 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 24 Defendants, [Document 87]; 25 7. Plaintiff Sean Roberts’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 26 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 27 Defendants, [Document 88]; 28 7 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1 1 8. Plaintiff Timothy Rausche’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 2 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 3 Defendants, [Document 83]; 4 9. Plaintiff Sue Gunter’s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, 5 in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, 6 [Document 82]; 7 10. Plaintiff Manuel Valdes Jr.’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 8 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 9 Defendants, [Document 93]; 10 11. Plaintiff James E. Woerhle’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 11 prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 12 Defendants, [Document 84]; 13 12. Each party agrees to bear its own fees and costs related to this matter. 14 15 Dated: September 5, 2016 16 /s/ Edwin Aiwazian Edwin Aiwazian Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC Dated: September 6, 2016 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP /s/ Julie G. Yap Julie G. Yap Attorneys for Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 2016 25 26 27 28 8 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER 28464884v.1

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?