Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02214/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02214-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) 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 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHASHI KHANNA, suing

individually and as Successor in

Interest of Amankumar Khanna,

deceased, by and on behalf of

Amankumar Khanna, all others

similarly situated, and the

general public,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS,

INC., a California Corporation

D/B/A/ HEALTHCARE SECURITY

SERVICES GROUP, a putative

independent entity; ENRIQUE

HERNANDEZ JR., an individual;

NEIL MARTAU, an individual;

LANCE MUELLER, an individual;

ROLAND A. HERNANDEZ, an

individual; PAUL R. MILLER, an

individual; MICHAEL P. MACHARG,

an individual; JEANNE GERVIN; an

individual; JANA FANNING, an

individual; BRITTANY MOORE, an

individual; CATHERINE ROSS, an

individual; LINDA SAYAD, an

individual; MARK CHAMBERLAIN, an

individual; and JAMES LATHAM, an

individual, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-02214-GEB-GGH

ORDER GRANTING PRIYANKA

KHANNA’S MOTION TO

SUBSTITUTE*

Case 2:09-cv-02214-KJM-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 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

2

On July 1, 2010, Priyanka Khanna moved under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) to be substituted as a plaintiff in this case

in the place of Shashi Khanna, who died on May 4, 2010, during the

pendency of this action. (Docket No. 39.) Priyanka Khanna declares

that she is Shashi Khanna’s natural daughter and successor in interest

as defined in section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure

and succeeds to her interest in this proceeding. (Khanna Decl. ¶ 15-

16.) Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition, in which they

state that they “do not intend to oppose” Priyanka Khanna’s motion. 

(Statement of Non-Opposition 1:8.) Therefore, Priyanka Khanna’s

motion to substitute is GRANTED.

Dated: August 2, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02214-KJM-EFB Document 43 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2