Temple v. Guardsmark, LLC

Filing 76

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

Temple v. Guardsmark, LLC

Doc. 76

1
19B

MARTIN D. BERN (SBN 153203)
[e-mail] 21BMALCOLM

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1B

A. HEINICKE (SBN 194174)

[e-mail]

23BYUVAL

MILLER (SBN 243492)

[e-mail]

TOLLES & OLSON LLP Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 [phone] [phone]
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