Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Temple v. Guardsmark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)


July 15, 2010

PHILLIP TEMPLE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GUARDSMARK, LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Susan Illston

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTION RE: MISSION PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS Location: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

Judge: The Honorable Susan Illston

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2010, Plaintiff Phillip Temple ("Plaintiff") filed a Letter Brief in this matter ("Letter Brief No. 2");

WHEREAS, Guardsmark, LLC ("Guardsmark") and Plaintiff have met and conferred and have reached an agreement regarding certain facts that will eliminate the need for the court to resolve Plaintiff's Letter Brief Number 2;

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their counsel of record, HEREBY STIPULATE that:

1. Guardsmark's Mission Partnership Statements do not contain language stating whether a client representative will relieve for purposes of taking a rest break those Guardsmark security officers who work as the sole Guardsmark security officer at a client site during a work shift of at least 8 hours;

2. Guardsmark stipulates that the putative Class as defined in the Second Amended Complaint is numerous and ascertainable, and Guardsmark will not oppose class certification of the putative Class as defined in the Second Amended Complaint based on the lack of numerosity or ascertainability; notwithstanding the foregoing, however, Guardsmark expressly reserves its right to oppose class certification under Rule 23(a)(2)-(4) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant authority related thereto;

3. Guardsmark's Mission Partnership Statements for accounts in California during the class period alleged in the Second Amended Complaint contain the following language under the heading "Alertness": "As a Security Officer, you must be mentally capable of responding quickly to instructions and remain constantly alert at your post, ready to react to any situation. Carry out orders promptly. Be an astute observer. And never sleep on the job!"

I, Martin D. Bern, attest that I have obtained concurrence from Daniel H. Qualls in the filing of this Stipulation. See N.D. Cal. General Order 45 § 10(B).

DATED: July 8, 2010

Martin D. Bern

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100715

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.