Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND THE CLASS DEFINITION by Hon. William Alsup denying 45 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 12 v. 13 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 14 Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CLASS DEFINITION / 15 16 No. C 15-02309 WHA Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CHARLES E. WARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, The Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class that 17 included individuals that worked for United up through the date of the complaint. Plaintiffs 18 request that the Court amend the class definition to extend to the date of the final judgment to 19 “have the class period ending date move forward in time, day after day, until either final 20 judgment or up until the time the format of the wage statements are corrected” (Dkt. No. 45 21 at 2). Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to the extent the termination date was a 22 clerical error, but does not stipulate to the proposed modification (Dkt. No. 46). 23 The Court intended the class period to end on the date plaintiff filed the complaint. 24 Plaintiff’s proposal to amend the class period to remain open as the case progresses, 25 encompassing each new hire and resulting in rolling damages calculation is DENIED. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 Dated: April 12, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?