Ray v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC

Filing 32

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/29/14 ORDERING, good cause appearing, the parties' stipulation for a stay pending final approval of the proposed class action settlement in Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call Cent er Technologies, LLC, Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento County, Case No. 34-2013-00148310, is GRANTED. The Parties are directed to file a joint statement notifying the Court of the status of the proposed class action settlement within three days of the Sacramento Superior Court's ruling on the motion for final approval. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MICHAEL E. BREWER, Bar No. 177912
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone:
925.932.2468
Facsimile:
925.946.9809
MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI, Bar No. 253791
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone:
916.830.7200
Facsimile:
916.848.0200

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC

10
11
12
13

DANIEL F. GAINES, Bar No. 251488
ALEX P. KATOFSKY, Bar No. 202754
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 980
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone:
818.703.8985
Facsimile:
818.703.8984

14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
QUIANNA RAY and MARQUIA TUCKER

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

19
20
21

QUIANNA RAY and MARQUIA
TUCKER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public,
Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25
26

v.
ADVANCED CALL CENTER
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

Case No. 2:13-CV-01472 KJM (DAD)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING FINAL
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT IN CARL, ET AL.
V. ADVANCED CALL CENTER
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Defendants.

27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

STIPULATION AND ORDER

13CV1472

1

Plaintiffs Quianna Ray and Marquia Tucker (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Advanced Call

2

Center Technologies, LLC (“ACT”) (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their counsel of

3

record, hereby stipulate and respectfully request that this action be stayed pending final approval of a

4

proposed class action settlement in the case entitled Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call Center

5

Technologies, LLC, Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento County, Case No. 34-

6

2013-00148310. The facts underlying the stipulation and request for a stay are as follows:

7

RECITALS

8

1.

On May 8, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Devra Keokongchack v.

9

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, U.S.D.C. Eastern District of California, Case No.

10

13cv1385 ("Keokongchack"), was filed against ACT. The Keokongchack lawsuit asserts claims for

11

alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.

12

2.

On June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit as a putative class action against ACT.

13

This lawsuit asserts claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California

14

Business & Professions Code.

15

3.

On July 19, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Shelley Carl, et al. v.

16

Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento

17

County, Case No. 34-2013-00148310 ("Carl"), was filed against ACT. The Carl lawsuit asserts

18

claims for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions

19

Code.

20
21

4.

On November 13, 2013, a private mediation was conducted with mediator Michael

Dickstein to discuss a potential global resolution of Keokongchack, Carl, and this lawsuit.

22

5.

On April 17, 2014, following continued assistance from mediator Michael Dickstein,

23

the named plaintiffs in all three putative class actions and ACT finalized a memorandum of

24

understanding for a proposed class action settlement in Carl, subject to approval by the Sacramento

25

Superior Court.

26

6.

Although ACT has agreed to a proposed class action settlement, ACT does not admit

27

that it engaged in any unlawful conduct. The Parties agree that the proposed class action settlement

28

shall not be construed as an admission by ACT that it has violated any statute, law, or regulation.
1.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

ORDER

13CV1472

1
2

7.

Counsel for the named plaintiffs in Carl has reserved a hearing date in June 2014 for

a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.

3

8.

Plaintiffs have reviewed the terms of the proposed class action settlement in Carl and

4

agree that they are fair, adequate, and reasonable. As a result, Plaintiffs have opted to participate in

5

the proposed class action settlement in Carl which, if approved by the Sacramento Superior Court,

6

would resolve and release their claims against ACT that are alleged in this lawsuit.

7

9.

If, for whatever reason, the Sacramento Superior Court does not grant final approval

8

of the proposed class action settlement in Carl, and therefore Plaintiffs' claims are not resolved and

9

released through the proposed class action settlement, the Parties wish to maintain the status quo in

10

this action.

11

10.

12

As of the date of this stipulation, no class has been certified in this action and no

notice has been sent to the putative class members.

13

11.

As of the date of this stipulation, all previously set deadlines and hearings, except for

14

the April 18, 2014 deadline to file dispositional documents, have been vacated.

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

2.
ORDER

13CV1472

1

STIPULATION

2

Accordingly, the Parties stipulate and respectfully request that this action be stayed pending

3

final approval of the proposed class action settlement in Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call Center

4

Technologies, LLC, Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento County, Case No. 34-

5

2013-00148310. The Parties will file a joint statement notifying the Court of the status of the

6

proposed class action settlement within three days of the Sacramento Superior Court's ruling on the

7

motion for final approval.

8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

9
10

Dated: April 17, 2014

11

/s/ Michael E. Brewer
MICHAEL E. BREWER
MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
ADVANCED CALL CENTER
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

12
13
14
15

Dated: April 17, 2014

16
/s/ Alex P. Katofsky [with permission]
DANIEL F. GAINES
ALEX P. KATOFSKY
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
QUIANNA RAY and MARQUIA TUCKER

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

3.
ORDER

13CV1472

1

ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, the Parties' stipulation for a stay pending final approval of the

3

proposed class action settlement in Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC,

4

Superior Court for the State of California, Sacramento County, Case No. 34-2013-00148310, is

5

GRANTED. The Parties are directed to file a joint statement notifying the Court of the status of the

6

proposed class action settlement within three days of the Sacramento Superior Court's ruling on the

7

motion for final approval.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2014.

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

4.
ORDER

13CV1472