Dietrick v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Filing 16

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re tolling of statute of limitations filed by Michael Dietrick. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 15, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

EDUARDO G. ROY (Bar No. 146316)
JOHN R. HURLEY (Bar no. 203641)
PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Michael Dietrick

6

UNITED STATES DISTIRCT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL DIETRICK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

10
11
12
13
14

Case No.: 3:13-cv-05016-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE TOLLING OF STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS

Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA,
INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION RE TOLLING

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff Michael Dietrick (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
(“Securitas”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed the present action against Securitas bringing (among others),
claims for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. (the “FLSA”).
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has asserted such claims on behalf of other former or current employees of
Securitas and seeks certification of the case as a collective action under the FLSA;
WHEREAS, the parties and their counsel believe that the primary issues of liability in this case
may be resolved by way of an early motion for summary judgment to be filed by Securitas;
WHEREAS, Securitas intends to file an early motion for summary judgment that could thus be
dispositive of the primary issues of liability in this case;

11

WHEREAS, the parties and their counsel believe that the outcome of such early motion for

12

summary judgment could either dispose of Plaintiff’s claims or position the case for potential settlement;

13
14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, Securitas and its counsel wish to avoid the time, expense and effort that would be
necessary to contest a motion for certification until after a ruling on summary judgment; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and his counsel wish to avoid potential prejudice to absent parties that may
attend from any delay in seeking conditional certification of this case as a collective action:
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. No statute of limitations shall run on any of the claims asserted under the FLSA in this

19

action, and the same shall be tolled, with respect to Plaintiff and any person(s)

20

encompassed within any collective action which may be certified (conditionally or

21

otherwise) in this action.

22
23
24

2. This tolling period shall run until fourteen (14) days after the Court issues a ruling on the
motion for summary judgment which Securitas intends to file.
3. So long as Securitas has not yet filed a motion for summary judgment, it may terminate

25

this tolling period by filing notice with the Court, and the tolling period will terminate

26

thirty (30) days after such notice is filed and served.

27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned filer of this document hereby attests that
concurrence in the filing has been obtained from each of the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu
2
STIPULATION RE TOLLING

1

of their signatures on the document.

2
3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
DATED: January 15, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

5
PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
6
By:
7
8

/s/ John R. Hurley
John R. Hurley, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Dietrick

9
10

DATED: January 15, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
THARPE & HOWELL, LLP

11
By:

12
13
14
15

/s/ Sherry B. Shavit
Sherry B. Shavit, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Securitas
Security Services USA, Inc.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: January 15, 2014

18
19
20
21

By:

____________
Jon S. Tigar
United States District Court Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION RE TOLLING