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

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING 71 REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2013)

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