Barnes et al v. The Hershey Company

Filing 82

ORDER granting 81 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by The Hershey Company re 63 MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE TO PUTATIVE COLLECTI VE ACTION MEMBERS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 216(B) Motion Hearing reset for 2/15/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/8/2013. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 DARYL S. LANDY, State Bar No. 136288 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel: 650.843.4000 Fax: 650.843.4001 Email: dlandy@morganlewis.com 5 6 7 8 9 MICHAEL S. BURKHARDT (admitted pro hac vice) MICHAEL C. HIGGINS (admitted pro hac vice) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215.963.5000 Fax: 215.963.5001 Email: mburkhardt@morganlewis.com mhiggins@morganlewis.com 10 11 Attorneys for Defendant THE HERSHEY COMPANY 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION GREGORY P. BARNES, DAVID C. BOLLE, and MARY D. WASSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiffs, 18 vs. 19 20 Case No. 3:12-cv-01334-CRB STIPULATION AND ORDER CHANGING DATE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION CERTIFICATION TO FEBRUARY 15, 2013 THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ORGAN , L EWIS & B OCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO DB1/ 72700250.3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING DATE OF HEARING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-cv-01334-CRB) 1 STIPULATION 2 3 Defendant The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) and Plaintiffs Gregory P. Barnes, David C. 4 Bolle, and Mary D. Wasson (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective counsel, jointly request 5 an order rescheduling the hearing date regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Collective Action 6 Certification, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the Northern District of California, as 7 follows: 8 9 1. WHEREAS, on November 1, 2012, Plaintiffs Gregory P. Barnes, David C. Bolle, and Mary D. Wasson (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Notice of Motion For Conditional Certification and 10 Notice to Putative Collective Action Members Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (“Plaintiffs’ 11 Motion”), Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiffs noticed the Motion for hearing for December 7, 2012. 12 13 2. WHEREAS, on November 15, 2012, Hershey filed its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Dkt. No. 73; 14 3. 15 Motion, Dkt. 74; 16 4. 17 18 WHEREAS, on November 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of their WHEREAS, on December 3, 2012, the Court rescheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion from December 7, 2012 to January 11, 2013; 5. WHEREAS, Mr. Landy’s wife is pregnant and anticipates labor commencing at 19 any time, and Mr. Landy, who is responsible for the day-to-day management of this litigation for 20 Hershey, will be unavailable to attend the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion on the rescheduled date 21 or for two weeks thereafter, through January 25, 2013; 22 23 24 25 26 6. WHEREAS, the Court’s website reflects that Judge Breyer is not available on the following two Fridays, February 1 and 8, 2013; 7. WHEREAS, having met and conferred, the parties agree that the Court may reschedule the hearing without any prejudice to any party; 8. WHEREAS, the parties have previously stipulated to one request to continue the 27 August 3, 2012 case management conference, Dkt. No. 40, and two requests to revise the briefing 28 schedules in connection with Hershey’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Dkt. No. 22, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 60; M ORGAN , L EWIS & B OCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO DB1/ 72700250.3 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING DATE OF HEARING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-CV-01334-CRB) 1 2 3 4 9. WHEREAS, the requested rescheduling of the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion will not alter the date of any other event or any deadline already fixed by Court Order; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 by and between the parties 5 hereto, through their respective counsel, that the hearing regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion be 6 rescheduled from January 11, 2013 to February 15, 2013. 7 8 Dated: January 4, 2013 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 9 10 By: /s/ Daryl S. Landy Daryl S. Landy 11 Attorneys for Defendant THE HERSHEY COMPANY 12 13 Dated: January 4, 2013 HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC 14 15 By: /s/ David C. Feola David C. Feola (admitted pro hac vice) 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs GREGORY P. BARNES, DAVID C. BOLLE, and MARY D. WASSON 17 18 19 Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Daryl S. Landy, attest that concurrence 20 in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare 21 under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true 22 and correct. Executed this 4th day of January, 2013, at Palo Alto, California. 23 /s/ Daryl S. Landy Daryl S. Landy 24 25 26 27 28 M ORGAN , L EWIS & B OCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO DB1/ 72700250.3 2 JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING DATE OF HEARING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-CV-01334-CRB) 1 2 ORDER 3 Pursuant to the parties Stipulation and for good cause shown, the January 11, 2013 4 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Collective Action Certification shall be removed from the 5 Court’s calendar, and the hearing shall be held on February 15, 2013. 6 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 S Date: January 8, 2013 RT U O harles Judge C NO 12 RT 13 ER H 14 15 er R. Brey FO 11 RDER OO IT IS S LI 10 R NIA Honorable Charles R. Breyer United States District Court D E Judge UNIT ED 9 S DISTRICT TE C TA A 7 N F D IS T IC T O R C 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ORGAN , L EWIS & B OCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PALO ALTO DB1/ 72700250.3 3 JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING DATE OF HEARING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-CV-01334-CRB)

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?