Saechao v. Landry's, Inc., et al

Filing 112

ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF by Hon. William Alsup granting 111 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

CARI A. COHORN (State Bar No. 249056)
COHORN LAW
101 California Street, Suite 2710
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10

KATHARINE CHAO (State Bar No. 247571)
CHAO LEGAL
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

v.
LANDRY’S, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT
CORP, a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 3:15-CV-00815-WHA
STIPULATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
PURSUANT TO FRCP 60; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
[Dkt. No. 110]

Defendants.
Complaint filed: February 23, 2015
Trial date: July 5, 2016

24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00815-WHA

1

WHEREAS Plaintiff Mouang Saechao filed a motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 64) on

2

January 28, 2016, seeking to certify classes with respect to, inter alia, alleged meal period

3

violations, rest period violations, and Defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corporation’s

4

(“MSRC” or “Defendant”) alleged failure to pay split shift premium pay to certain eligible

5

employees;

6

WHEREAS Plaintiff also sought to certify a class with respect to a claim for waiting time

7

penalties based on MSRC’s alleged failure to timely pay employees separating from their

8

employment with MSRC all premium pay for non-provided meal periods, non-provided rest

9

periods, and/or split shifts;

10

WHEREAS the Court entered an Order (Dkt. No. 98) on March 15, 2016 certifying classes

11

as to each of the aforementioned claims and referring to the claim for waiting time penalties as

12

“derivative of the meal-break, rest-break, and split-shift classes” (id. at 14:15-17) but later defining

13

the waiting time class as:

14
15
16

4.

All hourly, non-exempt former employees at Spenger’s who resigned or were
terminated between February 23, 2012, and February 23, 2015, and who are
members of the meal-break or rest-break classes.

(id. at p. 23, ¶ 4);

17

WHEREAS Plaintiff contends that the omission from Paragraph 4 of any reference to the

18

split-shift class was a clerical error or oversight that may be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 60(a) and files concurrently herewith an administrative motion seeking such relief

20

(Dkt. No. 110);

21

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the issue of the correct definition of the

22

waiting time class needs to be resolved before the issuance of the Class Notice, currently scheduled

23

for April 14, 2016;

24

WHEREAS MSRC opposes Plaintiff’s motion;

25

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their

26

respective counsel of record, that the four-day period provided for by Civil Local Rule 7-11(b) for

27
28

-1-

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00815-WHA

1

responding to Plaintiff’s motion (by filing either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition)

2

shall be shortened to one day so that the Court may rule on the matter as soon as possible.

3

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the United States District Court for the Northern

4

District of California, Cari A. Cohorn, counsel for Plaintiff and the Class, attests that she has

5

obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Nicholas Murray, counsel for MSRC, on

6

March 30, 2016.

7

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

8
9

DATED: March 30, 2016

10

COHORN LAW
By:

11
12
13

DATED: March 30, 2016

14

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By:

15
16
17
18
19
20

/s/ Cari A. Cohorn___________________
Cari A. Cohorn
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

/s/ Nicholas Murray
Nicholas Murray
Attorneys for Defendant

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 31, 2016.
DATED: ________________________

_____________________________________
The Honorable William H. Alsup
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00815-WHA