Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03769/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03769-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF RE CLASS CERTIFICATION 

MICHAEL MALK (Bar No. 222366)

mm@malklawfirm.com 

MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 

1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302 

Los Angeles, CA 90035 

Telephone: 310.203.0016 

Facsimile: 310.499.5210 

Attorneys for Plaintiff OSMIN MELGAR 

JAMES M. PETERSON (Bar No. 137837) 

peterson@higgslaw.com 

EDWIN M. BONISKE (Bar No. 265701) 

boniske@higgslaw.com 

HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 

401 West “A” Street, Suite 2600 

San Diego, CA 92101-7913 

Telephone: 619.236.1551 

Facsimile: 619.696.1410 

Attorneys for Defendant CSK AUTO, INC. 

n/k/a O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OSMIN MELGAR, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CSK AUTO, INC., an Arizona 

Corporation, and DOES 1-100, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 13-03769 (EMC) 

STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY 

BRIEF REGARDING CLASS 

CERTIFICATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Plaintiff OSMIN MELGAR (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated and Defendant CSK AUTO, INC. n/k/a O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (“Defendant”) 

(collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate 

and agree as follows: 

Case 3:13-cv-03769-EMC Document 85 Filed 10/16/15 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

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

1. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification August 6, 2015. 

2. Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion on September 21, 2015. 

Defendant supported its Opposition with, among other things, 116 class member declarations and 

an expert declaration. 

3. The parties are working together cooperatively to allow Plaintiff to depose some of 

Defendant’s declarants. Plaintiff took four depositions on October 13, 2015, and is scheduled to 

take three depositions on October 20, 2015. 

4. The scheduled filing date for Plaintiff’s Reply Brief is currently October 19, 2015. 

In order to allow time to obtain the deposition transcripts from the declarant depositions and to 

make use of them for his Reply Brief, the Parties agree that Plaintiff may have until November 6, 

2015 to file his Reply Brief. 

5. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is scheduled for 

December 10, 2015, and the Parties request that the hearing date remain unchanged. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: October 15, 2015 

 

MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 

By: /Michael Malk 

MICHAEL MALK. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff OSMIN MELGAR

DATED: October 15, 2015 

 

HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP

By: /Edwin Boniske 

JAMES M. PETERSON, ESQ. 

EDWIN BONISKE, ESQ. 

Attorneys for Defendant CSK AUTO, INC. n/k/a 

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____________ ______________________________________ 

 Hon. Edward M. Chen 

 United States District Judge 

10/16/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-03769-EMC Document 85 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2