Becerra et al v. RadioShack Corp.

Filing 45

INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/30/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

Eric A. Grover, Esq. (SBN 136080)
Robert Spencer, Esq. (SBN 238491)
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARCUS BECERRA, NATALIE CIEBRANT,
PHILLIP DIETRO, AND ARIEL GONZALEZ
James S. McNeill (SBN 201663)
Peter Z. Stockburger (SBN 265750)
McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
4435 Eastgate Mall, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92121
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

14
15
16

Attorneys for Defendant
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION
MARCUS BECERRA, NATALIE
CIEBRANT, PHILLIP DIETRO, and
ARIEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated,
and as “aggrieved employees” under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,
Defendants.

27

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-03586 YGR
CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] INITIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

28
[PROPOSED] INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
YGR

CASE NO. 11-CV-03586

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUSEL OF RECORD:

2

Following the Case Management Conference on March 19, 2012, during which

3 the parties agreed to forego class certification discovery for now and focus on discovery
4 and summary judgment motion practice related to the question of whether Defendant’s
5 dress code requirements constitute a “uniform” under applicable California law, the
6 Court issues the following Initial Scheduling Order:
7

Cutoff for Non-Expert Motion Related Discovery: June 15, 2012

8

Expert Motion Related Discovery Cutoff:

June 29, 2012

9

Last day to hear summary judgment motion:

August 7, 2012

10

To the extent that the above-referenced summary judgment motion relates solely

11 to the question of whether Defendant’s dress code requirements constitute a “uniform,”
12 the Court waives the requirement for a pre-filing conference and letter briefs as set forth
13 in Section 9 of the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases. If additional grounds for
14 summary judgment are raised, the parties shall comply with the Section 9 requirements.
15

The Court will hold a further Case Management Conference following a ruling on

16 the summary judgment motion. The Court will issue an order concerning ADR at that
17 Case Management Conference.
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: March 30, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22

Dated: March 26, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
KELLER GROVER LLP

23
24
By:
25
26

/s/
ERIC A. GROVER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

MCKENNA LONG AND

28

1
[PROPOSED] INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
YGR

CASE NO. 11-CV-03586

ALDRIDGE LLP

1
2

By:

3
4

/s/
JAMES S. MCNEILL
Attorneys for Defendant

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28
[PROPOSED] INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
YGR

CASE NO. 11-CV-03586