Akaosugi et al v. Benihana, Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED CLASS LETTER re 46 Order, 42 Letter filed by Benihana National Corp., 41 Letter filed by Tetsuo Akaosugi, Hieu Nguyen (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 TETSUO AKAOSUGI, HIEU NGUYEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED CLASS LETTER v. BENIHANA INC., d/b/a BENIHANA NATIONAL CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, 16 Defendant. / 17 18 No. C 11-01272 WHA On October 3, 2011, there was a discovery dispute hearing regarding production of a class 19 list. The order regarding the discovery dispute is filed concurrently herewith. The parties were 20 ordered to submit a draft of a letter to be sent to prospective class members in compliance with 21 the Court’s instructions set forth at the hearing. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reach 22 agreement on the draft letter. Based upon review of the draft letters submitted, the following 23 language for the letter is approved: 24 25 26 RE: Tetsuo Akaosugi and Hieu Nguyen v. Benihana National Corp., et al. [USDC N.D. No. CV 11-1272] The Court has given me permission to write you this letter to determine whether you 27 would be willing to speak with me in connection with a prospective class action lawsuit against 28 Benihana National Corp. (“Benihana”), in which Managers and General Managers who worked 1 for Benihana in California at any time since February 14, 2007 would be prospective class 2 members. 3 My firm represents the plaintiffs who brought the case — Tetsuo Akaosugi and Hieu 4 Nguyen — who claim that Benihana’s managers were improperly classified as exempt from 5 California’s overtime and meal and rest break laws. We believe you may be owed overtime 6 wages for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week as well as wages for 7 missed meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs also claim that Benihana had an unlawful “use it or lose 8 it” vacation policy. Benihana denies these claims and contends that it properly compensated its 9 managers. We are at a very important stage of the case where the judge must decide whether the case 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 should proceed as a class action. You are under no obligation to speak with me, but, if you are 12 willing to spare a few minutes, we would very much like to ask you about your job duties and 13 how you were paid. 14 15 If you are willing to speak to me, please call me at [insert contact information], so we can arrange a time to talk. 16 17 * * * Distribution of the letter shall comply with the Court’s instructions set forth at the 18 discovery dispute hearing on October 3, 2011 and summarized in the order file concurrently 19 herewith. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 13, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?