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.

Thomas Lusby, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gamestop Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


September 18, 2011

THOMAS LUSBY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GAMESTOP INC., GAMESTOP CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

*E-filed: September 18, 2012*

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION UNDER CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b)

This putative class action for recovery of wage and hour claims was filed in the San Jose Division and assigned to the undersigned on July 19, 2012. Filed simultaneously with the complaint 18 was plaintiff's motion for an order (1) granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement 19 agreement; (2) granting conditional certification of the settlement class; (3) appointing class 20 counsel; (4) appointing class representative; (5) appointing claims administrator; and (6) approving 21 class notice and claim form and timeline for administration. The parties consented to proceed 22 before a Magistrate Judge. The moving papers reveal that this action was first filed in the Superior 23

Court for the State of California in the County of San Francisco. Defendants removed the action to 24 the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division and, after the parties declined to proceed 25 before a Magistrate Judge, the case was assigned to Judge Alsup (Lusby v. Gamestop Inc. et al., 11-26

CV-05361 (WHA)). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice about four months 27 after removal. After dismissal of the case, counsel for the named plaintiff and defendants reached 28 an agreement to settle the claims. Thereupon, plaintiff re-filed the action in the San Jose Division of 2 the Northern District and immediately sought approval of the settlement agreement. 3

The parties confirmed this procedural history at the hearing held before this court on September 18, 2012. The procedural history of this case appears to be a violation of Civil Local 5 Rule 3-3(c). Accordingly, the parties in the present case are ordered to file forthwith in Lusby v. 6 Gamestop Inc. et al., 11-CV-05361, an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should 7 be Related, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b). In accordance with this rule, the parties shall 8 lodge a Chambers copy of the motion with both Judge Alsup and with the undersigned. In view of 9 this order, the parties may defer filing the submissions and amended complaint discussed at the 10 September 18 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

C12-03783 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: Carrie Anne Gonell: cgonell@morganlewis.com, pmartin@morganlewis.com 3 John David Hayashi: jhayashi@morganlewis.com, dghani@morganlewis.com 4 Molly Ann DeSario: mdesario@scalaw.com, grafal@scalaw.com, jmusgrave@scalaw.com, kngo@scalaw.com, kweekes@scalaw.com, mbainer@scalaw.com, scole@scalaw.com, 5 vantonian@scalaw.com 6 Scott Edward Cole: scole@scalaw.com, cdavis@scalaw.com, jmusgrave@scalaw.com, kngo@scalaw.com, Mbainer@scalaw.com, mdesario@scalaw.com 7 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

20110918

© 1992-2012 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.