Helm et al v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al

Filing 303

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

WILLIAM HELM, ET AL.

7
8

No. C 08-01184 SI

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

/

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March

13
9, 2011 order denying plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. Contrary to plaintiffs’
14
assertions, the Court did not fail to consider material facts with regard to numerosity and the community
15
work class. With regard to the on-call class, the Court considered plaintiffs’ interpretation of the payroll
16
records, but determined that the records do not speak for themselves. Finally, with regard to the meal
17
break class, the Court considered both of plaintiffs’ theories. The fact that some employees received
18
a 1-hour meal break is certainly relevant, as those employees are included in plaintiffs’ proposed class
19
definition. The Court notes that the class definitions in this case were often a moving target, and that
20
a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a renewed motion for class
21
certification is not the time to request that the Court redefine a subclass. Accordingly, the Court
22
DENIES plaintiff’s motion. (Docket No. 300).
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: April 21, 2011
26
27
28

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge