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
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?