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)
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?