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)
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?