Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03451-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA FRLEKIN, et al., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant. /

TAYLOR KALIN, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-03451 WHA

No. C 13-04727 WHA

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

Frlekin was commenced in July 2013; Kalin was commenced in October 2013. 

A May 2014 order stayed both Frlekin and Kalin pending Busk but stated that “[b]oth sides,

however, are expected to continue with discovery as to the California state-law claims.” 

The fact discovery deadline at the time was October 31, 2014. That deadline was then continued

to December 1, 2014 (Dkt. Nos. 56, 166, 178).

The fact discovery deadline was then again continued to March 16, 2015. The motion for

class certification is due by May 2015, and trial is set for September 2015 (Dkt. No. 198). 

Case 3:13-cv-03451-WHA Document 229 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

After the stay was lifted, plaintiffs were asked to address jurisdiction along with any

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint since they themselves stated that “the Court

should determine under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1367(c)(3) whether it wishes to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ California claims or whether Plaintiffs should pursue

those claims in California state court” (Dkt. Nos. 211, 214).

On January 9, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs did not address jurisdiction. Accordingly, by JANUARY 16 AT NOON, plaintiffs shall

please file: (1) a brief explaining in detail their position (and any support) on jurisdiction and 

(2) declarations from all plaintiffs’ counsel stating whether they will abide by the current case

schedule (Dkt. No. 198). In other words, the Court is concerned that plaintiffs if granted leave to

file the proposed second amended complaint will turn around and ask for giant extensions in the

case schedule. Any opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, due by January 23, should also address the

aforementioned points. All existing deadlines remain in place.

Dated: January 9, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-03451-WHA Document 229 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2