Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05219/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-05219-9/pdf.json

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

---

4824-6669-4917.2

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

PARSONS

BEHLE &

LATIMER

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC

Jason Rabinowitz, SBN 183822

David C. Coleman, SBN 261418

1404 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 625-9700

Facsimile: (510) 625-8275

Email: jrabinowitze@beesontayer.com

dcoleman@beesontayer.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER

Raymond J. Etcheverry

REtcheverry@parsonsbehle.com

W. Mark Gavre

MGavre@parsonsbehle.com

One Utah Center

201 South Main Street

Suite 1800

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: 801.532.1234

Facsimile: 801.536.6111

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL OCHOA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STERICYCLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3: 08-CV-05219 CRB

PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 

PLAINTIFFS’ OVERTIME CLAIMS 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

On September 11, 2009, Defendant Stericycle, Inc. (“Stericycle”) filed its Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Motion”). Defendant’s Motion requested that 

Plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Plaintiffs’ claims for overtime 

compensation based on their state-law causes of action be dismissed with prejudice based on the 

federal Motor Carrier Act exemption and the exemption in Section 3(L) of California Wage Order 

No. 9-2001. See Document No. 56. 

Case 3:08-cv-05219-CRB Document 75 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 3
4824-6669-4917.2

- 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

PARSONS

BEHLE &

LATIMER

By stipulation of the parties and order of this Court, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an 

opposition memorandum to Defendant’s Motion was January 7, 2010. See Documents No. 66 

and 67.

Plaintiffs have decided not to oppose Defendant’s Motion and agree to the dismissal with

prejudice of Plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act cause of action and their claims for overtime 

compensation based on their state-law claims.

Currently the hearing on Defendant’s Motion is scheduled for Friday, February 5, 2010 at 

10:00 a.m. Given that a hearing on Defendant’s Motion is no longer necessary, the parties 

request that the time set for the hearing be reconstituted as a status conference with the Court to 

address the remaining procedural issues in the case.

Dated: January 8, 2010 PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER

By: /s/ W. Mark Gavre

W. Mark Gavre

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: January 8, 2010 BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC

By: /s/ Jason Rabinowitz

Jason Rabinowitz

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:08-cv-05219-CRB Document 75 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 3
4824-6669-4917.2

- 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

PARSONS

BEHLE &

LATIMER

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause set forth above, the Court hereby 

orders:

(a) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted;

(b) Plaintiffs’ “Collective Cause of Action” under the Fair Labor Standards Act is 

dismissed with prejudice; and

(c) All of Plaintiffs’ claims for overtime compensation based on their state-law causes 

of action (First through Tenth Causes of Action) are dismissed with prejudice.

(d) A status conference with the parties is set for Friday, February 5, 2010 at 

10:00 a.m. to address the remaining procedural issues in the case.

Dated: ____________________ ____________________________________

Honorable Charles R. Breyer

United States District Judge

January 11, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

8:30

Case 3:08-cv-05219-CRB Document 75 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 3