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.

Charles Coleman, Keith Craft, Jorge "George" Romero v. Office Depot

November 26, 2012

CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, JORGE "GEORGE" ROMERO,
GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, AND MARKISS YBARRA,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
OFFICE DEPOT, INC., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Charles R. Breyer United States District Court Judge

KLETTER LAW FIRM Cary Kletter 2 ckletter@kletterlaw.com Sally Trung Nguyen 3 snguyen@kletterlaw.com 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350 4 San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel: 415.434.3400 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, JORGE "GEORGE" ROMERO, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN 7 VILCHEZ, MARKISS YBARRA, STEVEN RHODES, and DEE SALAZAR 8 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 9 BARBARA J. MILLER (SBN 167223) barbara.miller@morganlewis.com 10 JENNIFER L. BRADFORD (SBN 203871) jbradford@morganlewis.com 11 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750 Irvine, CA 92614 12 Tel: 949.399.7000 Fax: 949.399.7001 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 15

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 20 CONSIDER WHETHER CASES STIPULATION REGARDING SAME SHOULD BE RELATED; AND ORDER TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the parties in the above-entitled action, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, hereby move this Court for an 4 order relating the case entitled Salazar v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-05244 KAW, 5 pending before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore (the "Salazar Action"), to the above 6 entitled action and re-assigning the Salazar Action from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore's 7 docket to Judge Charles R. Breyer's docket. In addition, the parties hereby move this Court for 8 an order consolidating the Salazar Action with the above-entitled action for all purposes. 9

This Administrative Motion is based on the accompanying Stipulation.

STIPULATION

Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE "GEORGE" ROMERO, MARKIS YBARRA, STEVEN RHODES and DEE 4 SALAZAR and Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC., through their counsel of record, hereby 5 stipulate as follows: 6

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE "GEORGE" ROMERO and MARKIS YBARRA have a suit 8 against Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. currently pending in this Court before Judge Charles 9 R. Breyer, entitled Tsang, et al. v. Office Depot, Inc,. Case No. 12-CV-00427 CRB (the 10 "Previously Filed Action"); 11

WHEREAS, Plaintiff STEVEN RHODES has a suit against Defendant OFFICE DEPOT, INC. currently pending in this Court before Judge Charles R. Bryer, entitled Rhodes v. Office 13 Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-02767 CRB (the "Rhodes Action"); 14

WHEREAS, this Court previously entered an order relating the Rhodes Action to the Previously Filed Action; 16

WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR has a suit against OFFICE DEPOT, INC. currently 17 pending in this Court before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore, entitled Salazar v. Office 18 Depot, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-05244 KAW (the "Salazar Action"); 19

WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR has asserted misclassification and other wage and 20 hour claims in the Salazar action that are substantially the same as those asserted by Plaintiffs 21 CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE 22 "GEORGE" ROMERO, MARKIS YBARRA and STEVEN RHODES in the Previously Filed 23 Action and the Rhodes Action; 24

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs CHARLES COLEMAN, KEITH CRAFT, GARY TSANG, ADRIAN VILCHEZ, JORGE "GEORGE" ROMERO and MARKIS YBARRA's Second 26 Amended Complaint in the Previously Filed Action includes, inter alia, the following claims: (1) 27 Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 28 202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours Worked in Violation of 2 California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3) Failure to Provide Meal 3 and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 and IWC Wage 4 Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5) Failure to Provide an 5 Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6) Civil Penalties Under 6 California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices in 7 Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17203, et. seq.; (8) 8 Breach of Employment Contract; (9) Violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys 9 General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.; (10) Breach of the Covenant of 10 Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (11) Liquidated Damages Pursuant to California Labor Code 11 Section 1194.2; 12

WHEREAS, Plaintiff STEVEN RHODES's Complaint in the Rhodes Action includes the 13 following claims: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California 14 Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours 15 Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3) 16 Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 17 and 512 and IWC Wage Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5) 18 Failure to Provide an Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6) 19 Civil Penalties Under California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent 20 Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 21 17203, et. seq.; (8) Breach of Employment Contract; (9) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith 22 and Fair Dealing; and (10) Liquidated Damages Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 23 1194.2;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff DEE SALAZAR's Complaint in the Salazar Action includes the 25 following claims: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in Violation of California 26 Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Earned for Hours 27 Worked in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 and IWC Wage Orders; (3) 28 Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 2 and 512 and IWC Wage Orders; (4) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 204 and 210; (5) 3 Failure to Provide an Itemized Wage Statement in Violation of Labor Code Section 226(e); (6) 4 Civil Penalties Under California Labor Code Section 558; (7) Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent 5 Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code ...


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.