Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05428/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05428-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Michael Rubin (SBN 80618)

Barbara J. Chisholm (SBN 224656)

ALTSHULER, BERZON, NUSSBAUM, 

 RUBIN & DEMAIN

177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

E-Mail: mrubin@altshulerberzon.com

E-Mail: bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROY ADAMS, et al.

E. Jeffrey Grube (SBN 167324)

Julie A. Wilkinson (SBN 209180)

Lacie Treglown (SBN 243369)

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 856-7000

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100

E-Mail: jeffgrube@paulhastings.com

E-Mail: juliewilkinson@paulhastings.com

E-Mail: ltreglown@paulhastings.com

Attorneys for Defendant INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

(Additional counsel on following page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

ROY ADAMS, ROBERT EGGERT,

MICHAEL FERRIS, ED HALL, and ROHIT

SINGH on behalf of themselves and a class

of those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, 

INC., d/b/a INTER-CON SECURITY

SERVICES, INC.

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:06-CV-05428 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE: MATTERS RELATING TO

DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

COLLECTIVE ACTION AND CLASS 

ACTION

Hearing Date:

Date: February 5, 2007

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Place: Courtroom 15

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MATTERS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 33 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 5
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

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850)

Jahan C. Sagafi (SBN 224887)

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &

 BERNSTEIN, LLP

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

Telephone: (415) 956-1000

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

E-Mail: jfinberg@lchb.com

E-Mail: jsagafi@lchb.com

Micha Star Liberty (SBN 215687)

LIBERTY LAW OFFICE

78 First Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 896-1000

Facsimile: (415) 896-2249

E-Mail: micha@libertylawoffice.com

Kevin W. McTague (SBN 134514) 

MCTAGUE & PALAY

1484 East Main Street, 2nd Floor

Ventura, CA 93001

Telephone: (805) 641-6600

Facsimile: (805) 641-6607

E-mail: kwmct@mctague-palay.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROY ADAMS, et al.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MATTERS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 33 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 5
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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MATTERS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

WHEREAS defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. (“Inter-Con”) filed on October 16, 2006,

a Notice of Petition and Petition for an Order Compelling Arbitration, and Motion to Dismiss or,

Alternatively, to Stay Action Pending Arbitration (“Petition”), in which it sought to compel certain

plaintiffs to arbitrate the claims they assert in the above-captioned lawsuit; and

WHEREAS defendant Inter-Con’s Petition is currently scheduled for hearing on Monday,

January 22, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., and a case management conference is schedule for the same date and

time; and

WHEREAS the parties previously requested and were granted two short extensions of time of the

briefing and hearing schedule on defendant’s Petition, and further requested and were granted one

continuance of the case management conference in this matter, in order that the parties might meet and

confer regarding issues related to the Petition; and

WHEREAS, since the Complaint was filed on September 5, 2006, 316 additional plaintiffs have

filed notices with the Court consenting to sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act in this action pursuant

to 29 U.S.C. §216(b); and

WHEREAS the parties through their undersigned counsel have agreed that defendant Inter-Con’s

Petition shall apply to the claims of the original named plaintiffs (Roy Adams, Robert Eggert, Michael

Ferris, Rohit Singh, and Ed Hall) and to the claims of all current and future opt-in plaintiffs with

arbitration agreements substantially the same in content to the agreements of the five original plaintiffs,

regardless of whether those additional plaintiffs have already filed notices with the Court consenting to

sue under the Fair Labor Standards Act in this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) (“current opt-in

plaintiffs”) or file such notices in the future (“future opt-in plaintiffs”); and

WHEREAS defendant’s counsel has agreed to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with copies of each

arbitration agreement signed by the current opt-in plaintiffs and by any future opt-in plaintiffs promptly

after defendant Inter-Con locates each such agreement, and to provide a declaration under penalty of

perjury attesting to the previous existence of any such agreement that defendant is not able to locate after

a good faith and reasonable search; and

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 33 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 5
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MATTERS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

WHEREAS the parties need a short extension of the current briefing and hearing schedule

regarding defendant’s Petition for defendant to provide and plaintiffs to review arbitration agreements

signed by the current opt-in plaintiffs; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties through

their undersigned counsel, subject to this Court’s approval, as follows:

1. The hearing on defendant’s Petition currently scheduled for January 22, 2006, at 2:00 p.m.,

shall be rescheduled to February 5, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.; plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s Petition shall

be filed by no later than January 5, 2007; and defendant’s reply in support of its Petition shall be filed by

no later than January 22, 2007. The case management conference currently scheduled for January 22,

2007, at 2:00 p.m., shall be rescheduled to February 5, 2007, at 2:00 p.m.

2. Defendant’s counsel shall provide plaintiffs’ counsel with copies of each arbitration

agreement signed by the current opt-in plaintiffs that Inter-Con has located to date no later than

December 21, 2006, and shall provide plaintiffs’ counsel copies of each arbitration agreement signed by

the remaining current opt-in plaintiffs that it is able to locate, after a good faith and reasonable search, as

soon as practicable thereafter, but in no event after January 8, 2007 unless good cause is demonstrated to

plaintiffs’ counsel for need for additional time. Defendant’s counsel shall provide plaintiffs’ counsel

with copies of each arbitration agreement singed by future opt-in plaintiffs that it is able to locate, after a

good faith and reasonable search, within thirty (30) days after the filing of those individuals’ notices of

consent to sue, unless good cause is demonstrated to plaintiffs’ counsel for need for additional time. If

defendant is unable, after a good faith and reasonable search, to locate any current or future opt-in

plaintiff’s arbitration agreement, defendant will submit to plaintiffs’ counsel a sworn declaration from a

corporate officer or employee with knowledge of the facts asserted, affirming that such agreement

previously existed in Inter-Con’s files and that all named plaintiffs, current opt-in plaintiffs, and future

opt-in plaintiffs signed substantially identical agreements to arbitrate and were required by defendant

Inter-Con as a condition of employment as Inter-Con security officers to sign such agreements on or

about the time they submitted their applications for employment with Inter-Con.

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 33 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 5
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

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MATTERS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING ARBITRATION

3. Defendant’s Petition shall be deemed to be seeking an order compelling arbitration of the

claims asserted in the above-captioned case by the five named plaintiffs, all current opt-in

plaintiffs, and any future opt-in plaintiffs; except that if either party contends that the circumstances of

any particular opt-in plaintiff’s signing of Inter-Con’s arbitration agreement are sufficiently unique that

such individual should not in fairness be treated the same as all other plaintiffs for purposes of

defendant’s Petition, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve whether to exclude such

individual[s] from defendant’s Petition; and if the parties are unable to reach agreement, either party may

submit a motion to the Court seeking to include or exclude such individual[s] from any order compelling

or refusing to compel arbitration pursuant to defendant’s Petition. Nothing in this Stipulation precludes

the parties from arguing the propriety of class treatment under Rule 23 or collective-action treatment

under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) in any future proceeding in court or before an arbitrator.

4. Nothing in this Stipulation waives any right on the part of any named plaintiff, current opt-in

plaintiff, or any future plaintiff, to demonstrate that the circumstances of his or her individual execution

of the arbitration agreement were unconscionable. 

5. Nothing in this Stipulation waives any right to appeal or otherwise challenge this Court’s

ruling with regard to and/or on behalf of any individual, group of individuals, or entity affected by the

Court’s ruling on the Petition.

Dated: December 20, 2006 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By: /s/ E. Jeffrey Grube 

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: December 20, 2006 ALTSHULER, BERZON, NUSSBAUM, RUBIN & 

 DEMAIN

By: /s/ Michael Rubin 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________ _____________________________

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

12/21/06

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-05428-MHP Document 33 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 5