Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01180-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

PAUL VELIZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Cintas Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-1180 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 303, 321, 325, and 392] 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike portions of declarations filed by

Defendants in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Enforcement of the Court’s Order Re Facilitated Notice”

[Docket No. 303]; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to file a Late Brief regarding the Motion for

Enforcement; [Docket No. 321]; Defendants’ Motion to Strike portions of declarations filed by Plaintiffs in

support of the Motion for Enforcement [Docket No. 325]; and Defendants’ Motion to Strike portions of

declarations filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order regarding

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration [Docket No. 392].

OnOctober 19, 2004, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ MotionforEnforcement and subsequently

issued an order granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs’ Motion forExtension ofTime to file a Late

Brief [Docket No. 321] is DENIED as MOOT because the Court has already considered the merits of the

brief at issue in adjudicating the Motion forEnforcement. To the extent the Court did not address the parties’

respective objections [Docket Nos. 303 and 325] during the October 19, 2004 hearing or in the Court’s

subsequent order, they are DENIED as MOOT as irrelevant to the Court’s determination.

//

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 459 Filed 08/08/05 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

On May 4, 2005, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Reconsideration ofthe Court’sOrder regarding Defendants’ Motion to CompelArbitration. To the extent that

the Order does not address Defendants’ objections [Docket No. 392], they are DENIED as MOOT as

irrelevant to the Court’s determination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8-8-05

_______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01180-RS Document 459 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2