THOMAS ZABOROWSKI, VANESSA BALDINI, KIM DALE, and NANCY PADDOCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. and MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Defendants.
Allen R. Vaught, (admitted pro hac vice), BARON AND BUDD, P.C., Dallas, TX.
Kelly M. Dermody, (Cal. Bar No. 171716), Jahan C. Sagafi, (Cal. Bar No. 224887), LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Timothy J. Long, (SBN 137591), Lauri A. Damrell, (SBN 241010), ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE ADDITION OF HIETT CLASS MEMBERS TO NOTICE
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
The parties hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2013, the Court issued its Order re: FLSA Collective Action Notice Documents, directing MHN Government Services, Inc. and Managed Health Network, Inc. (collectively, "MHN") to produce contact information for all FLSA collective action class members (the "Class List") by June 21, 2013, and directing Plaintiffs to disseminate the Court-approved notice (the "FLSA Notice") to all FLSA Class Members by July 12, 2013 (Docket No. 99);
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an Order transferring Hiett v. MHN Government Services, Inc., Health Net Inc. and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation, a Washington corporation,  No. 12-cv-05428-BHS (W.D. Wash.) (an FLSA action filed on May 15, 2012, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of MFLCs that overlaps with the Class in this action) to this District;
WHEREAS, the clerk of the Hiett court has informed Hiett's counsel that the court expects to effectuate the transfer the week of June 24, 2013;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that Hiett should be deemed related to this action per N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-12(a);
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2012 the defendants in Hiett filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the same arbitration agreement at issue in this lawsuit, to which Hiett has responded and the Hiett defendants have replied, but the Hiett court stayed resolution of that motion;
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, this Court denied MHN's motion to compel arbitration (Docket No. 68), and that decision is now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, with MHN's opening appellate brief due on July 17, 2013;
WHEREAS, the parties agree the Hiett case should be stayed pending appellate resolution of the arbitration motion in this case;
WHEREAS, because Hiett was filed approximately five months before this case, the maximum liability period under the FLSA under Hiett reaches back approximately five months further than that under this case;
WHEREAS, the parties agree to conditional certification of the Hiett putative FLSA collective action ...