Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 3:05-cv-38 EMC. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150407856
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2015
Summary: NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Pursuant to the Court's instructions at the March 26, 2015 case management conference, defendant FedEx Ground Package System submits as Exhibit A the attached Proposed Case Management Order setting forth the Court's ruling. FedEx has met and conferred with Plaintiffs and they have no objection to the Proposed Order. EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCIS
Summary: NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Pursuant to the Court's instructions at the March 26, 2015 case management conference, defendant FedEx Ground Package System submits as Exhibit A the attached Proposed Case Management Order setting forth the Court's ruling. FedEx has met and conferred with Plaintiffs and they have no objection to the Proposed Order. EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISC..
More
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's instructions at the March 26, 2015 case management conference, defendant FedEx Ground Package System submits as Exhibit A the attached Proposed Case Management Order setting forth the Court's ruling. FedEx has met and conferred with Plaintiffs and they have no objection to the Proposed Order.
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
DEAN ALEXANDER, et al.
Plaintiffs, Case No: 3:05-cv-38 EMC
vs. [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., et al.,
Defendant.
In the above-captioned matter, plaintiffs and defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FXG") submitted a Joint Case Management Statement (Dckt # 94) on March 19, 2015, and appeared for a case management conference on March 26. Having reviewed the parties' joint statement and discussed their positions regarding appropriate pretrial proceedings, the Court determines that certain issues regarding the scope of recoverable damages and the definitions of the class and the overtime subclass, should be decided before formal discovery and further proceedings in this case.
Accordingly, the Court orders the following schedule for briefing and argument of the motions described below:
(1) a motion by FXG to clarify the class definitions with respect to the requirement that class members "drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences)"
(2) a motion by FXG to limit plaintiffs' recoverable damages period; and
(3) a motion by FXG to limit plaintiffs' recovery for certain categories of work-related expenses under Sections 221-224, and 2802 of the California Labor Code.
Event/Item Due Date/Deadline
Defendant's Motions Due May 14, 2015
Plaintiffs' Oppositions to Motions Due June 25, 2015
Defendants' Replies to Motions Due July 15, 2015
Motions Heard July 30, 2015
The parties are ordered to further meet and confer with regard to these motions prior to filing.
Source: Leagle
