Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al

Filing 464

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE JANUARY 8 ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 18, 2014. Response due March 24. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

MICHELLE LOU, MARSHA BEER,
SIMON NIM, and JESUAN RUIZ
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14

No. C 12-05409 WHA

v.
MA LABORATORIES, INC., ABRAHAM
MA, CHRISTINE RAO, and CHRISTY
YEE,

ORDER PERMITTING RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE JANUARY 8
ORDER

Defendants.
/

15
16

On February 27, the parties appeared for a status conference. In light of the unreasonable

17

position defendants took regarding the six FLSA opt-in plaintiffs, the Court permitted plaintiffs

18

to file a motion for reconsideration of the January 8 omnibus order regarding certification. After

19

the parties appeared for an oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion regarding the alleged settlement

20

with the four named plaintiffs and the status of the six opt-in plaintiffs, plaintiffs filed a motion

21

for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 441, 457, 462). Our local rules state that “no response need be

22

filed.” Local Rule 7-9(d). Nevertheless, defendants are permitted to file a response (NOT TO

23
24

EXCEED TEN PAGES IN TOTAL)

by NOON ON MARCH 24.

Both sides should continue their trial preparation for the plaintiffs set for trial. The six

25

opt-in plaintiffs have alleged FLSA claims and the four named plaintiffs have alleged FLSA and

26

state-law claims.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE