Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04432-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORENO ET AL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 AUTOZONE, INC,

Defendant. /

No. C05-04432 MJJ

ORDER RE SCOPE OF ORDER TO

STAY COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

On August 15, 2006, this Court issued its Order granting Defendant AutoZone’s Motion to

Abstain and to Stay Action on Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Sixth Claims in their Complaint (Doc. #61).

Thereafter, on September 19, 2006, Defendant filed a letter-brief indicating that a dispute has arisen

between the parties regarding the scope of that Order. Specifically, Defendant’s position is that the stay

pertains to all claims for meal and rest period violations. Defendant argues that, although Plaintiffs’

fifth and sixth claims for relief are the only claims that expressly assert claims for meal and rest break

violations, to the extent that other counts rely on the same violations, they are stayed, as well. In their

September 26, 2006 letter, Plaintiffs assert that the Court’s Order is limited to Counts five and six and

does not reach any other counts in the Complaint. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 82 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court has considered the parties’ positions and agrees with Defendant. Thus, the Court’s

August 15 Order shall be interpreted as staying any claim based on meal and rest period violations -

including Plaintiff’s fourth claim, to the extent it is premised on such violations - for the reasons set

forth in that Order. 

Further, Defendant’s Motion to Amend Stay Order (Doc. #78) is STRICKEN. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/10/2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04432-CRB Document 82 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2