Opinion
MATTHEW RIGHETTI, JOHN GLUGOSKI, MICHAEL RIGHETTI, RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C., San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Keith Welday.
JEFFREY D. WOHL, RISHI N. SHARMA, PETER A. COOPER, PAUL HASTINGS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation.
STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO STAY AND SET DEADLINE FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Keith Welday and defendant Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid"), acting through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. This is one of 10 related actions pending before the Court: Keith Welday v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB (" Welday "); Tom Bauser v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB (" Bauser "); Rachel Chavez v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB (" Chavez "); Mark Jaeger v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB (" Jaeger "); Bruce Kaufman v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB (" Kaufman "); Chris Gonzalez v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB (" Gonzalez "); Kathryn Von Kopp v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB (" Von Kopp "); Kevin Lewis v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:15-CV-00429 JAM-EFB (" Lewis "); Jeff Wise v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:15-CV-00622 JAM-EFB (" Wise "); and Paul Neumann v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:15-CV-00623 JAM-EFB (" Neumann ") (collectively the "Related Actions").
2. On March 4, 2015, Rite Aid moved to stay Welday, Bauser, Chavez, Jaeger, Kaufman, Gonzalez, and Von Kopp pending Romero v. Rite Aid Corp., U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 13-7720-MWF (JEMx) (" Romero "), a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid misclassified salaried Store Managers as exempt from the overtime pay and related requirements of California law. Because the plaintiffs in Welday, Bauser, Chavez, Jaeger, Kaufman, Gonzalez, and Von Kopp and the putative class in Romero are represented by the same counsel and plaintiffs in Welday, Bauser, Chavez, Jaeger, Kaufman, Gonzalez, and Von Kopp are putative class member in Romero, Rite Aid contended that the Court here should stay these proceedings as an effective case management tool under its inherent discretionary authority. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). ( See, e.g., Welday ECF 26.) Rite Aid's motions to stay remain pending before the Court, though the hearings were vacated on April 16, 2015. ( See, e.g., Welday ECF 34.) No such motions were filed in Lewis, Wise, or Neumann.
3. On March 2, 2015, separate counsel filed against Rite Aid a multi-plaintiff and putative class action in Santa Clara County Superior Court entitled Chavez v. Rite Aid Corp., Santa Clara Super. Ct. No. 1-15-CV-277313 (" Chavez II ") in which the plaintiffs allege that Rite Aid misclassified salaried Store Managers as exempt from the overtime pay and related requirements of California law.
4. On April 15, 2015, the parties in Romero agreed to dismiss without prejudice the putative class and representative claims in that action, which obviates Rite Aid's motion to stay in Welday, Bauser, Chavez, Jaeger, Kaufman, Gonzalez, and Von Kopp. Rite Aid also agrees not to move to stay the Related Actions pending Chavez II.
5. As such, the parties request that the Court:
a. permit Rite Aid to withdraw its motions to stay in Welday, Bauser, Chavez, Jaeger, Kaufman, Gonzalez, and Von Kopp;
b. set the parties' deadline to file a joint status report for May 18, 2015, to coincide with the parties' current or requested deadline to file joint status reports in the Related Actions; and
c. enter similar orders on the parties' stipulations in the Related Actions.
6. The parties also have agreed to set the deadline to exchange initial or supplemental disclosures for May 18, 2015, in this action and the Related Actions.
ORDER WITHDRAWING MOTION TO STAY AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT
On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Rite Aid Corporation's motion to stay this action pending Romero v. Rite Aid Corp., U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 13-7720-MWF (JEMx), is WITHDRAWN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' deadlines to file their joint status report is set for May 18, 2015, to coincide with the deadline to file joint status reports in the other actions related to this action by the Court's prior orders.