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)
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?