Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02228/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILY JEUNG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YELP INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02228-RS 

ORDER DENYING "EX PARTE" 

RELIEF, VACATING HEARING

Plaintiffs have filed what they have labeled as an “ex parte” motion to shorten time, a

request for injunctive relief against the California State Bar, and a motion for leave to amend their 

complaint to add the Bar as a defendant, as well as to add the claims upon which the request for 

injunctive relief is based.1 Plaintiffs seek to have their motions heard on July 9, 2015, at the time

presently set for other motion practice in this case.

Plaintiff’s counsel is currently the subject of disciplinary proceedings by the Bar. Counsel 

asserts those proceedings were wrongfully initiated at the instigation of defendant Yelp and its 

attorneys in response to his attempts to pursue his clients’ claims in this action. Although the Bar 

proceedings apparently include some inquiry into counsel’s conduct in this matter, there is no 

 

1 A motion to shorten time under Local Rule 6-3 is not brought ex parte nor have plaintiffs 

established grounds to seek any other relief without notice. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the “ex 

parte” label, plaintiffs’ papers were in fact served on the existing defendant automatically through 

the ECF system, and plaintiffs assert that notice was also given to the proposed new parties. 

Case 3:15-cv-02228-RS Document 82 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-02228-RS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

basis for joining in this putative class action any claims he or his individual clients may have 

related to, or arising from, the disciplinary action.

2

 Nor, even if counsel or his clients were able to 

state viable claims related to the disciplinary proceedings would there likely be any independent 

federal jurisdiction over such claims. Accordingly, both leave to amend and the request for 

various forms of injunctive relief against the Bar are hereby denied.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) the motions previously set for hearing on July 9, 2015 

are suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing is therefore vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

2 Nothing in this order should be understood as implying that counsel or plaintiffs have made even 

a prima facie case that they have cognizable claims against the Bar, or against Yelp or its counsel 

arising from the initiation or pursuit of the disciplinary proceedings.

Case 3:15-cv-02228-RS Document 82 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2