REVISED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PARTIES' JOINT REQUEST TO SPECIALLY SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 24 SETTLEMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO FILE OVERSIZED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Complaint Filed March 18, 2003
arbitration, respectively, for orders granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of this nationwide class and collective action from this Court in connection with Case No. 03-01180 RS (MEJ) and from American Arbitration Association ("AAA") Arbitrator Bruce Meyerson in 5 connection with the related class arbitration in AAA Case No. 11 160 01323 04;
WHEREAS, plaintiffs Paul Veliz et al., intend to move simultaneously in this Court and in
WHEREAS, the parties believe that it will facilitate the proceedings to have Arbitrator Meyerson personally attend and simultaneously hear the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the arbitration at the same time and in the same place as the Court's hearing of the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the above-captioned litigation;
WHEREAS, Arbitrator Meyerson has informed the parties that he will be available to attend a specially set hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on the afternoon of December 8, 2010, at such time as is convenient to the Court;
WHEREAS, this action has spawned lengthy and protracted court and arbitration proceedings over the course of over seven years that are now the subject of the proposed settlement, including litigation before this Court filed on March 18, 2003, AAA arbitration filed on May 4, 2004 (AAA Case No. 11 160 01323 04), Defendant Cintas Corporation's ("Cintas') petitions to compel arbitration in 70 different judicial districts, which were consolidated into an MDL proceeding before Ninth Circuit Appeals (Case Nos. 07-15009 and 07-16318/07-16645); for Arbitrator Meyerson to make any ruling in the litigation, but rather for the Court and Arbitrator Meyerson to separately but simultaneously hear the respective motions for approval of the settlement in the matter before each of them respectively;
WHEREAS, plaintiffs believe that the proper and necessary briefing of this motion will exceed the 25-page limit permitted by this Court for a supporting memorandum, particularly given the more than seven-year procedural history of this case, the need to explain the fairness of the global settlement and the requirements to support class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong in March 2006 (MDL Case No. 1781), as well as two pending
WHEREAS, the parties are not seeking for the Court to make any ruling in the arbitration or
WHEREAS, plaintiffs accordingly believe that their memorandum will need up to 50 pages to address adequately their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement;
WHEREAS, Cintas takes no position regarding plaintiffs' request to file an oversized supporting memorandum of up to 50 pages;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class and collective action settlement shall be set for the afternoon of December 8, 2010, at such time as is convenient to the Court and that plaintiffs shall be allowed to file a supporting memorandum in support of up to 50 pages.
Having considered the parties' stipulation and finding ...