Veliz et al v. Cintas Corporation et al

Filing 1232

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/24/08. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PAUL VELIZ, et al., v. Plaintiffs, NO. C 03-1180 RS SCHEDULING ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-FILED 12/24/08*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CINTAS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / The scheduling order presented below applies to the following motions submitted by both parties. (1) Defendants' motions: (a) Uniform SSR Motion for Summary Judgment (New Uniforms/Direct Sales) (Dkt. 1011); (b) Alvis Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1109); (c) Lauvrak & Stachnik Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1116); (d) Truck Weight Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1127); (e) Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Five SSRs Crossing State Lines/Application of 2-Year Limitation) (Dkt. 1128); (f) First Aid & Safety SSR Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1148); (g) Minnesota & Missouri Application of MCA Exemption Motion for Summary 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Judgment (Dkt. 1159); (h) Plaintiffs not SSRs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1161); (i) Facility Services SSR Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1168); (j) Motion for Summary Judgment on Uniform Delivering Plaintiffs (Dkt. 1169); and (k) Uniform SSR Motion for Summary Judgment (Consumables & Other New Uniforms/Direct Sales) (Dkt. 1201). (2) Plaintiffs' motions: (a) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Illegality of Cintas Pay Practice (Dkt. 1107); (b) Motion to Substitute Spouses for Deceased Plaintiffs Lawrence Michfelder & Bruce Lauvrak (Dkt. 1116); (c) Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 1123); and (d) Motion to Supplement Plaintiffs' Expert Report & to Compel Production of Usable Payroll Records (Dkt. 1158). It is hereby ordered that: (1) For all motions identified above, the hearing date is moved to February 4, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. (2) All oppositions are due on or before January 21, 2009. (3) All replies are due on or before January 28, 2009. (4) Defendants' concurrently filed Motion for De Novo Determination (Dkt. 1092) and Motion to Sustain Objections to Orders Compelling Discovery (Dkt. 1094) will proceed under Civil Local Rule 72-2 as an objection to a non-dispositive pretrial decision rather than under Civil Local Rule 72-3 as an objection warranting de novo review of a dispositive decision. Accordingly, no hearing will be scheduled on that motion at this time.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2008

RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SCHEDULING ORDER C 03-1180 RS

3