Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 825

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE BY PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/13/2012. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 01-02252 CRB

DUKES, ET AL.,

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE

Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) has moved for leave to file a motion

18

for reconsideration (dkt. 822) of this Court’s order denying Wal-Mart’s Motion to Dismiss.

19

Specifically, Wal-Mart asks this Court to reconsider whether, for purposes of exhausting

20

their administrative remedies, absent class members may rely on the administrative charge

21

filed by former named plaintiff Stephanie Odle.

22

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to respond to Wal-Mart’s motion. In a filing of no

23

more than 12 pages, Plaintiffs shall address both whether leave should be granted to file the

24

motion as well as the merits of the proposed motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ response

25

shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 27, 2012.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: December 13, 2012

G:\CRBALL\2001\2252\order requiring response.wpd

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE