Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02124/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02124-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION 

PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI

19BMARTIN D. BERN (SBN 153203) 

20BMartin.Bern@mto.com 

21BMALCOLM A. HEINICKE (SBN 194174) 

2BMalcolm.Heinicke@mto.com 

23BYUVAL MILLER (SBN 243492) 

24BYuval.Miller@mto.com 

25BMUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

26B560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 

27BTelephone: (415) 512-4000 

28BFacsimile: (415) 512-4077 

29BAttorneys for Defendant 

30BGUARDSMARK, LLC 

16BUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

17B(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

8BPHILLIP TEMPLE, on behalf of himself, 

individually, and all others similarly 

situated, 

9BPlaintiff, 

10Bvs.

1BGUARDSMARK, LLC, and DOES 1 

through 100, INCLUSIVE, 

12BDefendant.

13BCASE NO. CV-09-2124-SI 

18BSTIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY 

MOTION RE: MISSION PARTNERSHIP 

STATEMENTS

14BJudge: The Honorable Susan Illston 

15BLocation: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 76 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION 

PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI

0BWHEREAS, on May 28, 2010, Plaintiff Phillip Temple (“Plaintiff”) filed a Letter 

Brief in this matter (“Letter Brief No. 2”); 

1BWHEREAS, Guardsmark, LLC (“Guardsmark”) and Plaintiff have met and 

conferred and have reached an agreement regarding certain facts that will eliminate the 

need for the court to resolve Plaintiff’s Letter Brief Number 2; 

2BNOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their counsel of record, 

HEREBY STIPULATE that: 

3B1. Guardsmark’s Mission Partnership Statements do not contain language stating 

whether a client representative will relieve for purposes of taking a rest break those 

Guardsmark security officers who work as the sole Guardsmark security officer at a client 

site during a work shift of at least 8 hours; 

4B2. Guardsmark stipulates that the putative Class as defined in the Second 

Amended Complaint is numerous and ascertainable, and Guardsmark will not oppose 

class certification of the putative Class as defined in the Second Amended Complaint 

based on the lack of numerosity or ascertainability; notwithstanding the foregoing, 

however, Guardsmark expressly reserves its right to oppose class certification under Rule 

23(a)(2)-(4) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant authority 

related thereto;

5B3. Guardsmark’s Mission Partnership Statements for accounts in California during 

the class period alleged in the Second Amended Complaint contain the following 

language under the heading “Alertness”: “As a Security Officer, you must be mentally 

capable of responding quickly to instructions and remain constantly alert at your post, 

ready to react to any situation. Carry out orders promptly. Be an astute observer. And

never sleep on the job!”

6B

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 76 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MISSION 

PARTNERSHIP STATEMENTS; CV-09-2124 SI

36BDATED: July 8, 2010 37BMUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

38BMARTIN D. BERN 

39BMALCOLM A. HEINICKE 

40BYUVAL MILLER 

41BBy: /s/ Martin D. Bern 

42BMARTIN D. BERN 

43BAttorneys for Defendants 

4BGUARDSMARK, LLC 

45BDATED: July 8, 2010 46BQUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P. 

47BBy: /s/ Daniel H. Qualls 

48BDANIEL H. QUALLS 

49BAttorney for Plaintiff 

50BPHILLIP TEMPLE 

7BI, Martin D. Bern, attest that I have obtained concurrence from Daniel H. 

Qualls in the filing of this Stipulation. See N.D. Cal. General Order 45 § 10(B). 

31BDATED: July 8, 2010 U /s/ Martin D. Bern

32BMartin D. Bern 

3BPURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

34BDATED: U

35BThe Honorable Susan Illston 

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 76 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3