Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01498/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01498-0/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Anderson, et al. v. County of Tulare

CV-F-01498-FVS-SMS

DAVID P. MASTAGNI. ESQ. (SBN 57721)

DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244)

WILL M. YAMADA, ESQ. (SBN 226669)

STESHA R. HODGES, ESQ. (SBN 234892)

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

A Professional Corporation

1912 “I” Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 446-4692

Facsimile: (916) 447-4614

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONZO ANDERSON, ALICIA ALVALOS,

DANIEL J. BALDERAS, GABRIEL

BONILLA, KAROLY BOSTAI, JEREME

BROGAN, KRISTINA BROOKS, CHAD

BRUCE, AARON BUCKMASTER,JIMMY

BURCIAGA, JOSEPH A.CAMPOS,MONICA

P. CARO, MATTHEW CARROLL,

CELESTINA CASTILLO, MICHAEL

CLAYBORN, DUANE CORNETT, JOSEPH

“JODY” COX, SCOTT N. COX, DOUGLAS

DALE CROMBIE, RICHARD DEITZ,

FRANKIE DOLE, SARA DOYLE, STEPHEN

H. ELLIS, CESAR ESCOBAR, JEFFREY

FEDERICO, MARK FRICK, ALFRED

GALAFATE, MICHAEL GIEFER, MICHAEL

GRAY, GREG GRUICH, JAMES GUY,

JESUS GUZMAN, ROBERTHADLEY,JUDD

HEMBREE, GREG HERNANDEZ, SHAWN

HERMOSILLO, CASEY HIGGINBOTHAM,

LORI HOLCOMB, DEMECIO HOLGUIN,

FRANK HOLGUIN III, RYAN HOLMES,

JAMES HOWELL, JOSHUA HOWSER,

ALVIN JENKINS, JOHN L. JOBE, TIM

JOHNSON, ANTHONY JONES, EDUARDO

JONES JR., KEITH M. JUNG, KERRY

KELLY, RODNEY L. KLASSEN, KAREN

MADRID, GARY MARKS, JAYSON

MARTHERUS, KEVIN B. MEDLEY, ELSA

BEATRICE MEJIA, RAQUEL MERAZ,

,JEREMY MEYST, DOUG MILLER,

ROBERT MOORE, RONALD C. MOORE,

TRAVIS MYERS, DARREN C. NELSON,

GORDON M. O’RAFFERTY, STEVEN W.

OLDS, ANNA ORTIZ, STEVEN PASILLAS,

DAVID PEREZ, LEONARD G. PHILLIPS,

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 ) 

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CASENO. 1:05-cv-01498-FVS-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

WITHDRAWING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTI O N TO STRIK E

DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES [20]

Vacating the Hearing date of:

March 13, 2006 at 9:30a.m.

Before Judge Van Sickle

Case 1:05-cv-01498-FVS -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Anderson, et al. v. County of Tulare

CV-F-01498-FVS-SMS

-2-

JUSTIN C. PIPKIN, NATHAN POLK,

CHAD E. RHYMAN, JEREMY ROSE,

SANDRA ROBLES, STEVEN SANCHEZ,

TIM SATTERFIELD, DANNY SERPA,

TOM SIGLEY, YSIDRO J. TORRES,

MICHEAL TYLOR STELOW, MARK T.

STEWART, ROBERT STRASSENBURN,

RONALD G. TAYLOR, ERIC TREVINO,

JOSE TORRES, JAMES “JC” TURNER,

DANIEL E. VILLALOBOS, BRIAN

VOGEL, MICHAEL WADSWORTH,

RANDALL WALTZ, JOSHUA WHEELER,

DAVID B. WINTERS, ROBERT B.

WINTERS,NATHAN WRIGHT, MIKE

YANDELL, JOSEPH GARCIA YBARRA

JR., acting for themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF TULARE,

Defendant.

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to the above-entitled action,

by their respective counsel that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses is

withdrawn and Affirmative Defenses Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16), Twenty-One (21) and TwentyTwo (22) asserted in Defendant’s Answer are hereby stricken.

1. On November 17, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court,

Eastern 

District of California against Defendant for violations of the FLSA. 

2. On January 23, 2006, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint denying all

allegations and setting forth twenty-four affirmative defenses. 

3. On February 10, 2006 Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike to strike Defendant County of

Tulare’s Eighth (8), Fifteenth (15), Sixteenth (16), Twenty-First (21), Twenty-Second

(22), and Twenty-Fourth (24) Affirmative Defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer.

Case 1:05-cv-01498-FVS -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Anderson, et al. v. County of Tulare

CV-F-01498-FVS-SMS

-3-

4. Plaintiffs withdraw their Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses.

5. Defendant agrees the Fifteenth (15), Sixteenth (16), Twenty-First (21) and TwentySecond (22)Affirmative Defenses asserted in Defendant’s Answer are stricken. 

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK,

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER

Dated: February 22, 2006

By: /s/ David E. Mastagni 

DAVID E. MASTAGNI,

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: February 22, 2006

By: /s/ Peter Brown 

PETER BROWN

Attorney for Defendant

Case 1:05-cv-01498-FVS -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Anderson, et al. v. County of Tulare

CV-F-01498-FVS-SMS

-4-

ORDER

The Stipulation and Order Is Hereby Adopted by the Court for the Case and the Parties

Are Ordered to Comply with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01498-FVS -SMS Document 22 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 4