Tsang et al v. Office Depot, Inc.

Filing 44

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Charles Coleman, ORDER RELATING CASE(S) C-12-0427 CRB and C-12-5244 KAW. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/26/12. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2012)

1
2
3
4

KLETTER LAW FIRM
Cary Kletter
[e-mail]
Sally Trung Nguyen
[e-mail]
1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: [phone]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, JORGE
“GEORGE” ROMERO, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN
VILCHEZ, MARKISS YBARRA, STEVEN
RHODES, and DEE SALAZAR

8
9
10
11
12

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
BARBARA J. MILLER (SBN 167223)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER L. BRADFORD (SBN 203871)
[e-mail]
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
19
20

CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT,
JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, GARY
TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, and MARKISS
YBARRA,

21
22
23

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 12-CV-00427 CRB
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED;
STIPULATION REGARDING SAME

AND ORDER

OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and DOES 1
THROUGH 20, inclusive,

24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the parties in the above-entitled action, pursuant to
Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, hereby move this Court for an
order relating the case entitled Salazar v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-05244 KAW,
pending before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore (the “Salazar Action”), to the above
entitled action and re-assigning the Salazar Action from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore’s
docket to Judge Charles R. Breyer’s docket. In addition, the parties hereby move this Court for
an order consolidating the Salazar Action with the above-entitled action for all purposes.
This Administrative Motion is based on the accompanying Stipulation.

10
11

Dated: November 13, 2012

12

KLETTER LAW FIRM
CARY KLETTER
SALLY TRUNG NGUYEN

13
14

By: /s/ Cary Kletter
Cary Kletter

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT,
JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, GARY
TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, MARKISS
YBARRA, STEVEN RHODES, and DEE
SALAZAR

16
17
18
19
20

Dated: November 13, 2012

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
BARBARA J. MILLER
JENNIFER L. BRADFORD

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By: /s/ Jennifer L. Bradford
Jennifer Bradford
Attorneys for Defendant
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STIPULATION
Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN
VILCHEZ, JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, MARKIS YBARRA, STEVEN RHODES and DEE
SALAZAR and Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC., through their counsel of record, hereby
stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG,
ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO and MARKIS YBARRA have a suit
against Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. currently pending in this Court before Judge Charles
R. Breyer, entitled Tsang, et al. v. Office Depot, Inc,. Case No. 12-CV-00427 CRB (the
“Previously Filed Action”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff STEVEN RHODES has a suit against Defendant OFFICE DEPOT,
INC. currently pending in this Court before Judge Charles R. Bryer, entitled Rhodes v. Office
Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-02767 CRB (the “Rhodes Action”);
WHEREAS, this Court previously entered an order relating the Rhodes Action to the
Previously Filed Action;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR has a suit against OFFICE DEPOT, INC. currently
pending in this Court before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore, entitled Salazar v. Office
Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-05244 KAW (the “Salazar Action”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR has asserted misclassification and other wage and
hour claims in the Salazar action that are substantially the same as those asserted by Plaintiffs
CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE
“GEORGE” ROMERO, MARKIS YBARRA and STEVEN RHODES in the Previously Filed
Action and the Rhodes Action;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG,
ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO and MARKIS YBARRA’s Second
Amended Complaint in the Previously Filed Action includes, inter alia, the following claims: (1)
Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201,

28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours Worked in Violation of
California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3) Failure to Provide Meal
and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage
Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5) Failure to Provide an
Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6) Civil Penalties Under
California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices in
Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17203, et. seq.; (8)
Breach of Employment Contract; (9) Violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.; (10) Breach of the Covenant of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (11) Liquidated Damages Pursuant to California Labor Code
Section 1194.2;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff STEVEN RHODES’s Complaint in the Rhodes Action includes the
following claims: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours
Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3)
Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512 and IWC Wage Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5)
Failure to Provide an Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6)
Civil Penalties Under California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent
Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17203, et. seq.; (8) Breach of Employment Contract; (9) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing; and (10) Liquidated Damages Pursuant to California Labor Code Section
1194.2;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR’s Complaint in the Salazar Action includes the
following claims: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours
Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3)

28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512 and IWC Wage Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5)
Failure to Provide an Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6)
Civil Penalties Under California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent
Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17203, et. seq.; (8) Breach of Employment Contract; (9) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing; and (10) Liquidated Damages Pursuant to California Labor Code Section
1194.2;
WHEREAS, the basis for Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY
TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO and MARKIS YBARRA’s wage
and hour claims in the Previously Filed Action is that Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC.
purportedly misclassified them as exempt employees when they held the position of Store
Manager;
WHEREAS, the basis for Plaintiff STEVEN RHODES’s wage and hour claims in the
Rhodes Action is that Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. purportedly misclassified him as an
exempt employee when he held the position of Store Manager;
WHEREAS, the basis for Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR’s wage and hour claims in the
Salazar Action is that Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. purportedly misclassified her as an
exempt employee when she held the position of Store Manager;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR is represented in the Salazar Action by the same
counsel, Kletter Law Firm, as is representing Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT,
GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, MARKIS YBARRA,
and STEVEN RHODES in the Previously Filed Action and the Rhodes Action;
WHEREAS, Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. is represented in the Salazar Action by
the same counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, as is representing Defendant OFFICE DEPOT,
INC. in the Previously Filed Action and the Rhodes Action;
WHEREAS, substantially the same issues of fact and law exist in the Salazar Action as

28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

exist in the Previously Filed Action and the Rhodes Action;
WHEREAS, there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or
conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges;
WHEREAS, the Previously Filed Action and this action are related cases as defined in
Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-12;
WHEREAS, as matters of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent rulings on
substantially the same questions of fact and law favor consolidation of the Salazar Action into the
Previously Filed Action;
WHEREAS, counsel for all parties in both actions have agreed to consolidate the newly
filed Salazar Action into the Previously Filed Action;
WHEREAS, no trial date has been set in either action; and
WHEREAS, none of the parties would be prejudiced by this consolidation.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED pursuant to Northern
District of California Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11:
1. That the Salazar Action and the Previously Filed Action are related;
2. That the Salazar Action shall be re-assigned from Magistrate Judge Kandis A.
Westmore’s docket to Judge Charles R. Breyer’s docket; and
3. That the Salazar Action shall be consolidated with the Previously Filed Action before
Judge Charles R. Breyer for all purposes.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1

Dated: November 13, 2012

2

KLETTER LAW FIRM
CARY KLETTER
SALLY TRUNG NGUYEN

3
4

By: /s/ Cary Kletter
Cary Kletter

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT,
JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, GARY
TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, MARKISS
YBARRA, STEVEN RHODES, and DEE
SALAZAR

6
7
8
9
10

Dated: November 13, 2012

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
BARBARA J. MILLER
JENNIFER L. BRADFORD

11
12
13
14

By: /s/ Jennifer L. Bradford
Jennifer L. Bradford
Attorneys for Defendant
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION;
STIPULATION
12-CV-05244 KAW & 12-CV-00427 CRB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
12

CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT,
JORGE “GEORGE” ROMERO, GARY
TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, and
MARKISS YBARRA,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 12-CV-00427 CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
BE RELATED

vs.
OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and DOES 1
THROUGH 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED as follows:

20

1. The case entitled Salazar v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. C 12-CV-05244 KAW,

21

pending before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore (the “Salazar Action”), is

22

related to the above-entitled case;

23
24

2. The Salazar Action is re-assigned from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore’s
docket to Judge Charles R. Breyer’s docket; and

25

3. The Salazar Action is consolidated with the above-entitled case for all purposes.

26

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Date:__________________
November 26, 2012

______________________________
The Honorable Charles R. Breyer
United States District Court Judge