Wright et al v. Adventures Rolling Cross Country, Inc. et al

Filing 75

ORDER Re Corrective Notice. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/5/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PETER WRIGHT, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

No. C-12-0982 EMC
ORDER RE CORRECTIVE NOTICE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
ADVENTURES ROLLING CROSS
COUNTRY, INC., et al.,

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

The Court has reviewed the parties’ comments on the Court’s proposed corrective notice.

16

Defendants essentially do not object to the substantive content of the proposed corrective notice.

17

Plaintiffs have proposed some revisions. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ proposed revisions

18

and adopts them in part and rejects them in part. The Court hereby authorizes the following

19

corrective notice. The notice shall be communicated via e-mail, which was the channel of

20

communication previously used by Defendants. The parties should meet and confer to determine

21

who should send the notice (e.g., Defendants, Plaintiffs, or a third-party administrator). The notice

22

shall issued two weeks from the date of this order.

23

COURT NOTICE

24

You may have received emails from Adventures Rolling Cross Country (“ARCC”) regarding

25

the lawsuit referenced above. These emails were not reviewed by the Court prior to their sending.

26

The Court has authorized this notice to correct any possible misunderstandings created by the

27

emails.

28

1

Background on Lawsuit

2

Plaintiffs in this case are former employees of ARCC. They have filed a class/collective

3

action on their own behalf and on the behalf of others similarly situated against ARCC and Scott

4

Von Eschen (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs contend that ARCC Trip Leaders are entitled to

5

the protection of United States and California law, including payment of minimum wages, meal and

6

rest period premiums, and overtime, with penalties and interest. The Court has limited the wage

7

claims to time spent in California during training and/or post-trip debriefing. Defendants dispute all

8

of Plaintiffs’ claims, asserting, among other things, that they are exempt from federal and state

9

minimum wage and overtime laws because ARCC is an organized camp that conducts operations

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

during a particular season (i.e., summer).
The Court has not made any findings in this matter.
ARCC’s Criticisms of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
ARCC’s emails contained statements that were critical of Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Any such

14

statements are solely the opinions of ARCC. Whether or not you decide to participate in this lawsuit

15

as a class action member, you should decide independently whether you wish to have Plaintiffs’

16

attorneys, another attorney, or no attorney represent you.

17

Consequences of Your Participation in the Lawsuit or

18

Cooperation with Plaintiffs’ Counsel

19

Comments made by ARCC about what you might receive from this lawsuit or what might

20

happen to you should you decide to participate in the lawsuit and cooperate with Plaintiffs’ counsel

21

are solely the opinion of ARCC.

22
23

Retaliation Is Prohibited
It is a violation of federal and California law for ARCC, or any of its managers or agents, to

24

retaliate or otherwise discriminate against you for taking part in this case. If you believe that you

25

have been penalized in any way for participating in this lawsuit or for considering participating in

26

this lawsuit, you may contact a lawyer, either Plaintiffs’ counsel or another attorney of your

27

choosing. You may contact Plaintiffs’ counsel at Bryan Schwartz Law, c/o Bryan Schwartz, (510)

28

444-9300, [e-mail].

2

1
2

Communications from Attorneys
Attorneys representing Plaintiffs and/or Defendants may contact you about this lawsuit. It is

3

up to you whether to communicate with the attorneys. As indicated above, you will not suffer any

4

negative consequences for speaking with Plaintiffs’ attorneys. If you communicate with

5

Defendants’ lawyers, those communications will not be confidential and could be used by

6

Defendants in this case.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: July 5, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3