Leonard et al v Bimbo Bakeries, USA, Inc, et al

Filing 489

STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Request to Appear by Telephone for the 2/8/2010 Preliminary Approval Hearing re 488 Stipulation; Finding as Moot 487 Stipulation to Continue the 2/8/2010 Preliminary Approval Hearing. Signed by Judge James Ware on 2/4/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2010)

Download PDF
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 Wendy M. Lazerson (SBN 97285) Carolyn B. Hall (SBN 212311) BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 Telephone: (650) 849-4400 Facsimile: (650) 849-4800 Attorneys for Defendant BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. UNIT ED S S DISTRICT TE C TA Attorneys for Plaintiffs Thomas Leonard et al. (Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs at End of Document) N F D IS T IC T O R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION No. C 05 00829 (JW) In re BIMBO BAKERIES USA FLSA ACTIONS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT FEBRUARY 8, 2010 HEARING DATE ON JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Complaint filed: Judge: February 25, 2005 Hon. JAMES WARE CASE NO. 05-00829 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT A/73286988.1 A SPIRO MOSS BARNESS LLP Ira Spiro, State Bar No. 67641 ira@spiromoss.com 11377 W. Olympic Blvd. Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel (310) 235-2468, Fax (310) 235-2456 ER C LI FO mes Wa Judge Ja re R NIA O OR IT IS S DERED RT U O NO RT H 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 Plaintiffs Leonard, Bradaric, Hoskins, Newman, Herr, Harrison, Jeter, Motte, Morrison, Castro and Terusa, and defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. ("BBU"), being all the parties of record in this action, by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate as set forth in the "STIPULATION" portion of this document below, based on the following circumstances: On January 19, 2010, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of settlement to February 8, 2010 and directed to parties to file their Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Proposed Order by January 29, 2010. The parties filed the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and all related papers and proposed orders on January 29, 2010. On the date currently set for hearing on the joint motion, February 8, 2010 commencing at 9:00 a.m., counsel for defendant BBU must attend and take a deposition in San Diego, California pursuant to an order by Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the matter styled Carlotta Blount v. ADP, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1668-JAH (POR). An additional deposition subject to Magistrate Porter's order in the Blount matter is set for February 22, 2010 commencing at 9:00 a.m. in San Diego. Counsel for all the parties are available on February 15, 2010, however, that is a court holiday. Counsel for plaintiffs have a trial commencing on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. The first Monday date that all parties are available is March 15, 2010. The Court has indicated that under the circumstances it will permit the parties to appear telephonically on February 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. The parties agree to appear telephonically on February 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. and each party agrees to arrange for their telephonic appearance through Court Call Phone Conferencing. // // // // CASE NO. 05-00829 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT A/73286988.1 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 DATED: February 4, 2010 DATED: February 4, 2010 In view of the foregoing: STIPULATION IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BY ALL PARTIES as follows: The parties stipulate to a telephonic appearance at the hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on February 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Wendy M. Lazerson Attorneys for Defendant SPIRO MOSS BARNESS HARRISON & BARGE LLP By: /s/ Ira Spiro Attorneys for Plaintiffs Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs are listed below: LANGFORD & LANGFORD, a PLC Michael S. Langford (SBN 125756) 24681 La Plaza, Suite 220 Dana Point, California 92629 mklangford@aol.com Telephone: (949)545-6540 Fax: (949) 545-6541 Attorneys for Kathleen Morrison et al. WALSH & WALSH, PC Michael J. Walsh (SBN 155401) michaeljwalshesq@aol.com 420 Exchange, Suite 270 Irvine, California 92602 Telephone: (714) 544-6609 Fax: (714) 544-6621 Attorneys for Kathleen Morrison et al. GIGLIOTTI & GIGLIOTTO, L.L.P Joseph J. Gigliotti (SBN 144979) gigliottilaw@msn.com 434 East Chapman Avenue Fullerton, California 92832 Telephone: (714) 879-1712 Fax: (714) 879-3429 Attorneys for Kathleen Morrison et al. GINEZ, STEINMETZ & ASSOCIATES Rudy Ginez, Jr. (SBN 84978) 926 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92703 Telephone: (714) 541-2251 Fax: (714) 541-5807 Attorneys for Kathleen Morrison et al. 2 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT A/73286988.1 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 ORDER Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: The Court will permit the parties to appear telephonically at the hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on February 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties are directed to schedule their telephonic appearances through Court Call Phone Conferencing. The Stipulation to Continue the February 8, 2010 hearing (Docket Item No. 487) is found as MOOT. 4 Dated: February _____, 2010 _____________________________________ HON. JAMES WARE United States District Judge 3 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT A/73286988.1

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?