Temple v. Guardsmark, LLC

Filing 76

ORDER re: pltfs. discovery motion re: mission partnership (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2010)

Download PDF
Temple v. Guardsmark, LLC Doc. 76 1 19B MARTIN D. BERN (SBN 153203) 20BMartin.Bern@mto.com 21BMALCOLM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B A. HEINICKE (SBN 194174) 22BMalcolm.Heinicke@mto.com 23BYUVAL MILLER (SBN 243492) 24BYuval.Miller@mto.com TOLLES & OLSON LLP Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 (415) 512-4000 (415) 512-4077 25BMUNGER, 26B560 27BTelephone: 28BFacsimile: 29BAttorneys 30BGUARDSMARK, for Defendant LLC STATES DISTRICT COURT 16BUNITED NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17B(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) TEMPLE, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated, 8BPHILLIP 13B 9BPlaintiff, CASE NO. CV-09-2124-SI AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION RE: MISSION PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS 18BSTIPULATION 10Bvs. Judge: 14B GUARDSMARK, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, 12BDefendant. 15BLocation: The Honorable Susan Illston Courtroom 10, 19th Floor 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI Dockets.Justia.com 1 0B WHEREAS, on May 28, 2010, Plaintiff Phillip Temple ("Plaintiff") filed a Letter 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Brief in this matter ("Letter Brief No. 2"); 1BWHEREAS, Guardsmark, LLC ("Guardsmark") and Plaintiff have met and conferred and have reached an agreement regarding certain facts that will eliminate the need for the court to resolve Plaintiff's Letter Brief Number 2; 2BNOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their counsel of record, HEREBY STIPULATE that: 3B1. Guardsmark's Mission Partnership Statements do not contain language stating whether a client representative will relieve for purposes of taking a rest break those Guardsmark security officers who work as the sole Guardsmark security officer at a client site during a work shift of at least 8 hours; 4B2. Guardsmark stipulates that the putative Class as defined in the Second Amended Complaint is numerous and ascertainable, and Guardsmark will not oppose class certification of the putative Class as defined in the Second Amended Complaint based on the lack of numerosity or ascertainability; notwithstanding the foregoing, however, Guardsmark expressly reserves its right to oppose class certification under Rule 23(a)(2)-(4) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant authority related thereto; 3. Guardsmark's Mission Partnership Statements for accounts in California during 5B 20 21 22 23 24 25 the class period alleged in the Second Amended Complaint contain the following language under the heading "Alertness": "As a Security Officer, you must be mentally capable of responding quickly to instructions and remain constantly alert at your post, ready to react to any situation. Carry out orders promptly. Be an astute observer. And never sleep on the job!" 6B 26 27 28 -1STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI 1 36B DATED: July 8, 2010 37BMUNGER, 38BMARTIN 2 3 4 5 41BBy: 39BMALCOLM 40BYUVAL TOLLES & OLSON LLP D. BERN A. HEINICKE MILLER /s/ Martin D. Bern D. BERN 42BMARTIN 43BAttorneys 6 7 8 45BDATED: 44BGUARDSMARK, for Defendants LLC July 8, 2010 46B QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P. /s/ Daniel H. Qualls H. QUALLS 47BBy: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 34B 33BPURSUANT 31BDATED: 7BI, 49BAttorney 48BDANIEL 50BPHILLIP for Plaintiff TEMPLE Martin D. Bern, attest that I have obtained concurrence from Daniel H. Qualls in the filing of this Stipulation. See N.D. Cal. General Order 45 10(B). July 8, 2010 U /s/ Martin D. Bern Martin D. Bern 32B TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: U 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- The Honorable Susan Illston 35B STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI

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?