Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04748/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04748-7/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

1

Although the motion was directed to the Special Master for consideration and the

Special Master subsequently issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion, the parties have

requested this Court approve the Special Master’s order, (see Proposed Order, submitted

September 15, 2006, ¶ 13), which request necessitates consideration of the motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BUGRA BAKAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs

 v.

CITIGROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 03-4748 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO

LODGE CHAMBERS COPIES IN

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

ORDER 45 AND THE COURT’S

STANDING ORDERS

On September 8, 2006, plaintiffs electronically filed a Motion for Approval of Request

for Attorneys Fees, Costs and Class Representative Enhancements, and a supporting

declaration. Plaintiffs have violated General Order 45 and the Court’s Standing Orders,

however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day

following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy of each document

that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the

judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45

§ VI.G; see also Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M.

Chesney ¶ 2.1

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 63 Filed 09/28/06 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

Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45 and the Court’s

Standing Orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the above-referenced

documents. Plaintiffs are hereby advised that if they fail in the future to comply with the

Court’s Standing Order to provide chambers copies of electronically-filed documents, the

Court may impose sanctions, including, but not limited to, striking from the record any

electronically-filed document of which a chambers copy has not been timely provided to the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04748-MMC Document 63 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2