Enriquez et al v. Interstate Group, LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER RE: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT SHAWN LUTYEN re 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn filed by Shawn Luteyn, Interstate Group, LLC. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/11/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CHERYL D. ORR (SBN 143196) cheryl.orr@dbr.com S. FEY EPLING (SBN 190025) fey.epling@dbr.com AYSE KUZUCUOGLU (SBN 251114) ayse.kuzucuoglu@dbr.com DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 Facsimile: (415) 591-7510 Attorneys for Defendant INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 13 14 JOSE ENRIQUEZ and QUINN COLMENERO, individuals, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 18 INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; SHAWN LUTEYN, an individual, and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ) (Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT SHAWN LUTEYN Date: Time: Judge: June 19, 2012 2:00 p.m. Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 19 Defendants. 20 21 This Stipulation and [proposed] Order is entered into by Plaintiffs JOSE ENRIQUEZ and 22 23 QUINN COLMENERO and Defendants INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC and SHAWN LUTEYN 24 (hereinafter the “Parties”): WHEREAS, Plaintiffs JOSE ENRIQUEZ and QUINN COLMENERO have filed the 25 26 above captioned proposed wage and hour class action naming INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC and 27 SHAWN LUTEYN as defendants; and 28 /// D RINKER B IDDLE & R EATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIP & PROP ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFT SHAWN LUTEYN SF01/ 831249.1 CASE NO. 4:11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to engage in settlement discussions and participated in a Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on March 29, 2012; and WHEREAS, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn was fully briefed and previously set for hearing on March 20, 2012 (See, ECF Doc. No. 22); and WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated to continue the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss to a date after the Settlement Conference (Doc. 28); and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint which added a claim under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) against Defendant INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC, only, and included no changes, substantive or procedural, that affected Defendant Shawn Luteyn (Doc. 23, Att. 1); and WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated that the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A (Docs. 12-14, 16-17, 19), should be considered by this court as the Parties’ timely filings on the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn; and WHEREAS, a settlement was not reached in this matter; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Compliant as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn be heard on June 19, 2012; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED UPON by the Parties, by and through their counsel noted below, as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn, filed and served on December 27, 2011 (Exhibit A-1, Docs. 12-14), be deemed a timely Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Defendant Shawn Luteyn; and 2. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit A-2, Docs. 16-17) shall be deemed a timely Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; and 28 D RINKER B IDDLE & R EATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIP & PROP ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFT SHAWN LUTEYN SF01/ 831249.1 -2- CASE NO. 4:11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit A-3, Doc. 19) shall be deemed a timely Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; and 4. Defendant will serve a new Notice of Motion setting the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for June 19, 2012; and 5. Mr. Luteyn’s participation in the Settlement Conference in no way operated to affect his rights to consent to jurisdiction. 8 9 Dated: May , 2012 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 10 11 By:/s/ Cheryl D. Orr Cheryl D. Orr S. Fey Epling Ayse Kuzucuoglu 12 13 Attorneys for Defendant INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC 14 15 Dated: May , 2012 LAGARIAS & BOULTER, LLP 16 17 By: /s/ Robert S. Boulter Robert S. Boulter Peter C. Lagarias Adrian L. Canzoneri 18 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOSE ENRIQUEZ and QUINN COLMENERO 20 21 22 ATTESTION RE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES 23 Pursuant to General Order 45.X.B., I attest that concurrence in the filing of the document 24 has been obtained from the other signatory, which shall serve in lieu of his signature on the 25 document. 26 27 28 D RINKER B IDDLE & R EATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIP & PROP ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFT SHAWN LUTEYN SF01/ 831249.1 -3- CASE NO. 4:11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ) 1 Dated: May , 2012 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 2 3 By:/s/ Cheryl D. Orr Cheryl D. Orr 4 Attorneys for Defendant INTERSTATE GROUP, LLC 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D RINKER B IDDLE & R EATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIP & PROP ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFT SHAWN LUTEYN SF01/ 831249.1 -4- CASE NO. 4:11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ) 1 ORDER 2 The parties having so stipulated, it is hereby ordered as follows: 3 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 4 Defendant Shawn Luteyn, filed and served on December 27, 2011 (Exhibit A-1), is hereby 5 deemed a timely Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 6 Defendant Shawn Luteyn; and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit A-2) is hereby deemed a timely Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; and 3. Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit A-3) is hereby deemed a timely Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint; and 4. Defendant shall serve a new Notice of Motion setting the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for June 19, 2012; and 5. Mr. Luteyn’s participation in the Settlement Conference in no way operated to affect his rights to consent to jurisdiction. 6. This Order Terminates Docket Numbers 28 & 32. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: May 11, 2012 20 21 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D RINKER B IDDLE & R EATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIP & PROP ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AS TO DEFT SHAWN LUTEYN SF01/ 831249.1 -5- CASE NO. 4:11-CV-05155-YGR (MEJ)

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?