From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espinoza v. County of Fresno

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 13, 2013
1:07-CV-01145-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2013)

Opinion

          Gary M. Messing, No. 075363, James W. Henderson, Jr., No. 071170, CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP, Attorneys at Law Sacramento, CA.

          William B. Aitchison, No. 90642, AITCHISON & VICK, INC., Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JUAN ESPINOZA, PAUL, MARQUEZ, AARON EPPERLY and ERIC SCHMIDT.

          MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH, William H. Littlewood, (as authorized on June 7, 2013), Attorneys for Defendant.


          THIRD STIPULATION AND ORDER TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATION FOR FILING ACTIONS

          SANDRA M. SNYDER, Magistrate Judge.

         WHEREAS, on March 25, 2013 this Court issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Decertification of Collective Action; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to that Order the Court ordered that, with the exception of the four lead ("named") Plaintiffs in the action all other Plaintiffs' claims were severed from the action and dismissed without prejudice subject to each Plaintiff filing a separate action for his or her claims; and

         WHEREAS, the Order has the effect of severing and dismissing the claims of over 200 Plaintiffs; and

         WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated that the statutes of limitation be tolled for an additional fifty-one (51) days after the date of entry of the Order to June 14, 2013; and

         WHEREAS, despite efforts by U.S. Mail, Certified Mail, return receipt requested, email and telephone, Plaintiffs' counsel have still not heard from all of the opt-in Plaintiffs as to whether they wish to proceed by separate actions, and

         WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the efforts of Plaintiffs' counsel to contact their clients and ascertain their wishes with respect to filing of new actions, it is hereby stipulated and agreed to by the parties as follows:

         1. That any applicable statutes of limitation relating to the filing of the separate actions by the dismissed Plaintiffs as described in the Court's March 25, 2013 Order granting Defendant's Motion for Decertification of Collective Action, be and are extended from the date of entry of the Order (March 25, 2013) to June 28, 2013 provided however, that this stipulation shall apply only to the dismissed Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A attached hereto who have not as of the date of this Stipulation confirmed whether they wish to have a new action filed on their behalf.

         I hereby agree to the terms of the above Stipulation.

         I hereby agree to the terms of the above Stipulation.

          ORDER

         The parties having stipulated, it is ordered that any applicable statutes of limitation relating to the filing of individual actions by the dismissed opt-in Plaintiffs identified on Exhibit A hereto pursuant to the Court's Order granting Defendant's Motion for Decertification of Collective Action dated March 25, 2013 are hereby tolled from the date of that Order to June 28, 2013. The Court shall grant no further extension of time absent a "meet and confer" with the Court showing extreme good cause for an additional extension.

         EXHIBIT A


Summaries of

Espinoza v. County of Fresno

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 13, 2013
1:07-CV-01145-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Espinoza v. County of Fresno

Case Details

Full title:JUAN ESPINOZA, PAUL MARQUEZ, AARON EPPERLY and ERIC SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 13, 2013

Citations

1:07-CV-01145-OWW-SMS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2013)