Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02159/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02159-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APP. TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPP’N AND HEARING DATE TO 

MOTION TO DECERTIFY

3:10-MD-02159-CRB

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

Matthew T. Theriault (SBN 244037)

Matthew.Theriault@capstonelawyers.com

Andrew J. Sokolowski (SBN 226685)

Andrew.Sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com

Capstone Law APC

1840 Century Park East, Suite 450

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: (310) 556-4811

Facsimile: (310) 943-0396

Lead Counsel and Attorneys for Plaintiff Jimmy Ellison and the Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND 

HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 

LITIGATION.

Case No.: 3:10-md-02159-CRB

Hon. Charles R. Breyer

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT & 

ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, CALIFORNIA 

LABOR CODE §§ 2698 ET SEQ.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND 

DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION AND 

HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DECERTIFY

[Ex Parte Application; no hearing set]

Trial Date: October 17, 2016

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 296 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APP. TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPP’N AND HEARING DATE TO 

MOTION TO DECERTIFY

3:10-MD-02159-CRB

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

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Deadline to File Opposition and Hearing on 

Defendant’s Motion to Decertify. The Court having considered the papers on this Application, 

and GOOD CAUSE appearing hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application, IT IS 

ORDERED THAT:

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Decertify, currently due to be filed on 

Friday, June 10, 2016, should instead be filed two weeks after the deposition of Defendant’s 

designated corporate representative as ordered by Magistrate Judge Corley (ECF No. 292). 

Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, currently due to be filed on June 20, 2016, 

should instead be filed ten days after Plaintiffs’ Opposition is filed; and

The hearing date for Defendant’s Motion, currently set for July 8, at 10:00 a.m., should 

be continued to August 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: June 8, 2016 _________________________

Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

Case 3:10-md-02159-CRB Document 296 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2