STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff RUMEKA McGLOTHIN and Defendant FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, hereby enter into the following Joint Stipulation for a brief continuation of the Case Management Conference, currently set for September 4, 2014, and all related deadlines.

STIPULATION

1. On June 2, 2014, Defendant removed this putative class action from the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. See Doc. 1.

2. Along with its Notice of Removal, Defendant also filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding pursuant to Local Rule 3-13, noting that there are two other pending cases involving similar issues and claims under California's wage and hour laws and covering some of the same putative class members and alleged class periods. The first of these actions, Kissinger, et. al. v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., Case No. CGC-09-487345 (San Francisco Superior Court) ("Kissinger"), was filed on April 15, 2009, on behalf of Defendant's non-exempt California employees and alleges claims for off-the-clock-work, forced patronage, and failure to reimburse uniform expenses. The second case, In re: Foot Locker Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litigation, MDL No. 2235 (E.D. Pa.) ("MDL"), involves the centralization for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings of several putative class and/or collective actions, including a matter which was originally filed in California on April 27, 2011. The MDL involves claims that Foot Locker failed to pay its non-exempt retail employees for all time worked, including time spent on alleged off-the-clock work. See Doc. 2.

3. On August 6, 2014, the Parties met and conferred regarding this case. During the call, the Parties discussed the two other pending matters and Defendant provided Plaintiff with some additional information. In particular, Defendant informed Plaintiff that an agreement in principle had been reached to settle, on a class-wide basis, in both the Kissinger and MDL matters. As counsel for Defendant is also counsel of record in Kissinger, Defendant offered to provide Plaintiff with a copy of that settlement agreement once it was filed.

4. A Motion for Preliminary Approval in Kissinger, along with the settlement agreement, is currently due to be filed by September 9, 2014, and a hearing on that motion is currently set for October 7, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

5. Given the overlap in claims, and considering that the settlements in the Kissinger and/or MDL matters may impact the scope of this current action going forward, the Parties believe it would be premature to discuss scheduling pending the approval of the Kissinger settlement.

6. Therefore, the Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for September 4, 2014, to a date after October 16, 2014, by which time the Motion for Preliminary Approval in the Kissinger matter will have been heard and the Parties will have had an opportunity to meet and confer regarding the appropriate scope of this case going forward and the impact that may have on scheduling in this case.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, the foregoing Joint Stipulation to Continue the September 4, 2014, Case Management Conference is approved, and it is hereby ordered that:

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED