Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01314-95/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRIKA MEDLOCK, LISA 

HARDIMAN, MIRIAM LEYVA, LORAINE

NARANJO, ENDANG WIDJAJA, KEVIN 

TAYLOR, DEBRA DOYLE, 

CHRISTOPHER DUGGAN, HILARIO 

ESCOBAR, and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TACO BELL CORP., and TACO BELL OF 

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

FROM PARAGRAPH XIV.E OF THE 

SECOND AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER 

TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF 

CONTESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

(ECF No. 618)

On February 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request from relief from the pretrial order. The 

pretrial order provides that 

If any party proposes additional jury instructions that are not agreed upon by all parties, 

such proposed jury instructions shall be filed with the Court no later than February 12, 

2016. Each party may file up to ten (10) proposed jury instructions and identify such as 

jury instructions upon which all parties could not agree. Unless prior leave is granted, the 

Court will not consider additional proposed jury instructions beyond the first ten (10).

(Sec. Am. Pretrial Order 54:19-23, ECF No. 608.)

Plaintiffs are seeking to file an additional seven disputed jury instructions. In their 

motion, Plaintiffs have identified eight jury instructions that are disputed. The Court notes that 

the majority of these instructions are substantive instructions that will be required to be provided 

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 619 Filed 02/11/16 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

to the jury so Defendants will be providing an alternative instruction. Based upon the number of 

instructions which are identified in Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court shall allow Plaintiffs and 

Defendants to file up to fifteen proposed jury instructions that have not been agreed upon by all 

parties. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendants may file up to 

fifteen (15) disputed jury instructions. Pursuant to the pretrial order, the parties are reminded 

that “[a]ll instructions shall be short, concise, understandable, and consist of neutral and 

accurate statements of the law. Argumentative or formula instructions will not be considered.” 

(ECF No. 608 at 55:14-16, emphasis in original.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01314-SAB Document 619 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2