Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03525/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03525-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
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 1

 The date on which the arbitration with Zurn is scheduled to begin has not been

provided, and UBS sets forth no explanation in support of its request for an expedited

hearing with respect thereto.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF BOWMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-3525 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR

HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE

THE FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE

JOINT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT

AND RELEASE

(Docket No. 188)

Before the Court is defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc.’s (“UBS”) “Motion to

Enforce the Final Order Approving the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release,” filed

March 27, 2007. Also before the Court is UBS’s motion for an order shortening time, by

which motion UBS seeks to have the above-referenced matter heard March 30, 2007, on

three days notice. By its Motion to Enforce, UBS seeks to enjoin class members Randall L.

Krenzin (“Krenzin”) and William R. Zurn (“Zurn”) from asserting various wage-and-hour

counterclaims in separate arbitrations before the NASD.

Although the arbitration with Krenzin is scheduled to begin April 3, 2007, UBS has

known about the counterclaims since at least January 2007.1

 Although UBS points out

certain practical considerations that affected its decision as to when to seek injunctive relief

Case 3:04-cv-03525-MMC Document 213 Filed 03/29/07 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

from this Court, the proposed schedule does not provide adequate time for opposition.

Accordingly, the motion for an order shortening time is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 188.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03525-MMC Document 213 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 2