McCrary v. Campbell Soup Supply Company, LLC et al

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/2/2013 ORDERING 14 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be the operative complaint in this matter; Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be DEEMED filed upon entry of the Order on this Stipulation; and Defendant shall have 30 days to respond to the Second Amended Complaint to commence upon entry of this Order. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 6 KENNETH S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 049045 ken@gaineslawfirm.com DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488 daniel@gaineslawfirm.com ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. SBN 202754 alex@gaineslawfirm.com GAINES & GAINES, APLC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (818) 703-8984 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY 8 RONALD W. BROWN, ESQ. SBN 107340 rbrown@cookbrown.com CARRIE E. BUSHMAN, ESQ. SBN 18613 cbushman@cookbrown.com MEG E. WILSON, ESQ. SBN 278386 mwilson@cookbrown.com COOK BROWN, LLP Telephone: (916) 442-3100 Facsimile: (916) 442-4277 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 Attorneys for Defendant CAMBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY, L.L.C. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 DANNY McCRARY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case No.: 2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. 26 27 28 STIP. AND ORDER REGARDING FILING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No.: 2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN 1 RECITALS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. WHEREAS, DANNY McCRARY ("Plaintiff ") filed his Original Complaint in San Joaquin County Superior Court on June 3, 2013; B. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in San Joaquin County Superior Court on June 27, 2013; C. WHEREAS, on or about July 3, 2013, Defendant removed the action to this D. WHEREAS, Defendant answered the First Amended Complaint on July 23, E. WHEREAS, Defendants contend that Plaintiff improperly named a non- Court; 2013; employing entity as an additional defendant in the action; F. WHEREAS, following confirmatory discovery, the parties have agreed to permit Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) which dismisses defendant Campbell Soup Company from the action and adds a claim for failure to pay wages due at separation pursuant to Labor Code §§ 201-203. The proposed SAC (with redline changes from the FAC) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. THEREFORE, the parties do STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows; 1. Plaintiff’s SAC shall be the operative complaint in this matter; 2. Plaintiff’s SAC shall be deemed filed upon entry of the Order on this Stipulation; and 3. Defendant shall have thirty (30) days to respond to the SAC, to commence upon entry of this Order. IT IS SO STIPULATED: 25 26 27 28 STIP. FOR CONTINUANCE OF CMC; [PROPOSED] ORDER 2. Case No.: 2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN 1 Dated: October 2, 2013 2 /s/ Alex P. Katofsky ALEX P. KATOFSKY GAINES & GAINES, APLC Attorneys for Plaintiff DANNY McCRARY 3 4 5 6 Dated: October 2, 2013 7 /s/ Carrie E. Bushman CARRIE E. BUSHMAN COOK BROWN, LLP Attorneys for Defendant CAMPBELL SOUP SUPPLY COMPANY 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER Upon reading the forgoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Plaintiff’s SAC shall be the operative complaint in this matter; 2. Plaintiff’s SAC shall be deemed filed upon entry of the Order on this Stipulation; and 3. Defendant shall have thirty (30) days to respond to the SAC, to commence upon entry of this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 2, 2013 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP. FOR CONTINUANCE OF CMC; [PROPOSED] ORDER 3. Case No.: 2:13-cv-01332-GEB-KJN

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?