Mendez v. R+L Carriers, Inc. et al

Filing 72


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ROBERT MENDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 11-2478 CW ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (Docket No. 71) v. R+L CARRIERS, INC.; R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ On January 24, 2013, Plaintiffs Robert Mendez and Randy 11 Martinez requested a case management conference to clarify the 12 scope of the November 19, 2012 order granting in part and denying 13 in part their motion for class certification. 14 Court certified a class of all truck drivers employed by 15 Defendants, R+L Carriers, Inc. and R+L Carriers Shared Services, 16 LLC, between May 2007 and May 2011. 17 their motion for class certification, however, Plaintiffs sought 18 to certify a class of truck drivers who were employed by 19 Defendants between May 2007 and the present. 20 In that order, the See Docket No. 67, at 41. In Because the class certification order appears to impose an 21 erroneous limitation on the class period, the Court is inclined to 22 amend the order to expand the class to include drivers employed by 23 Defendants after May 2011. 24 may file a response to Plaintiffs’ request for a case management 25 conference to articulate any reasons why they believe the class 26 certification order should not be amended. 27 must be filed within one week of the date of this order and must 28 not exceed three pages in length. Before it does so, however, Defendants Defendants’ response 1 Plaintiffs, in their request for a case management 2 conference, also sought to clarify whether the Court has approved 3 the proposed notice to class members that they submitted with 4 their motion for class certification. 5 the notice. 6 Defendants regarding the wording and timing of the proposed 7 notice. 8 set for March 7, 2013 on Defendants’ motion for certification of 9 interlocutory appeal. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 The Court has not approved Plaintiffs should try to reach an agreement with They may submit a new notice in advance of the hearing The Court will address the proposed notice and any other scheduling matters at that hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: 1/28/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?