Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Laurence E. Stevenson, An Individual; On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees v. Dollar Tree Stores

July 26, 2012

LAURENCE E. STEVENSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



Counsel of Record listed on following page

ORDER

STIPULATION TO STRIKE ATTORNEYS' FEES RELATED TO LABOR CODE SECTION 227.6 CLAIM; COMPLAINT FILED: April 22, 2011 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Plaintiff Laurence Stevenson ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an Order as follows:

WHEREAS on or about April 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2011-00101994 ("State Action");

WHEREAS on or about May 26, 2011, Defendant removed the State Action to this Court. After denying Plaintiff's motion to remand, this Court retained jurisdiction over the Action;

WHEREAS the First Cause of Action in the Complaint purports to seek remedies for Defendant's alleged failure "to provide Plaintiff and members of the proposed class with proper off-duty meal periods or otherwise compensate them for missed meal periods," in violation of, inter alia, Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 [Complaint ¶¶ 24-28], and in particular, alleges in that "[p]ursuant to IWC Wage Order Seven (8 CCR § 11070), as well as California Labor Code §§ 200, 203, 226.7, 512, 1194, and 1198, Plaintiff and class members are thus entitled to recover . attorneys' fees, and costs of suit." See Complaint ¶ 18;

WHEREAS Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint also contains a demand for attorney's fees, which states in relevant part "that judgment be entered in its favor and it be awarded its costs, including attorneys' fees and such further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate." See Answer to Complaint, at 5:13-15 (emphasis added); and,

WHEREAS during the pendency of this Action, on or about April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that "neither section 1194 nor section 218.5 authorizes an award of attorney's fees . on a section 226.7 claim" for breaks. See Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal. 4th 1244, 1248 (2012).

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective counsel of record, as follows:

1. That reference to "Labor Code § 1194" and "attorneys' fees and costs of suit" are hereby stricken from Paragraph 28 of the Complaint as follows:

Pursuant to IWC Wage Order Seven (8 CCR § 11070), as well as California Labor Code §§ 200, 203, 226.7, 512, 1194, and 1198, Plaintiff and class members are thus entitled to recover the unpaid balance of meal period pay owed by Defendant, plus interest, and waiting time penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.

2. That Defendant is not entitled to recover attorney's fees in defense of Plaintiff's claims under California Labor Code sections 218.5 or 1194;

3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties reserve the right to seek attorneys' fees under other applicable claims or statutes plead in the Complaint, and to oppose such requests. Further, the parties' stipulation does not prevent the Parties from raising and opposing other arguments regarding the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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