Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00411-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(A)(1)(A)(II) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Jon D. Meer (SBN 144389)

jmeer@seyfarth.com

Casey J.T McCoy (SBN 229106)

cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com

Michael Afar (SBN 298990)

mafar@seyfarth.com

2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500

Los Angeles, California 90067-3021

Telephone: (310) 277-7200

Facsimile: (310) 551-8324

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Julie G. Yap (SBN 243450)

jyap@seyfarth.com

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350

Sacramento, California 95814-4428

Telephone: (916) 448-0159

Facsimile: (916) 558-48399

Attorneys for Defendants

C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC. and TRACY 

LOGISTICS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS BICEK; individually, and on behalf 

of other members of the general public 

similarly situated, and on behalf of aggrieved 

employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys 

General Act ("PAGA"),

Plaintiff,

v.

C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., a 

Vermont corporation; TRACY LOGISTICS, 

LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 

1 through 100, inclusive,,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(A)(1)(A)(II) REGARDING 

PLAINTIFFS BICEK, CHAN, 

ALVAREZ, GEERLOF, MOORE, 

TILOS, ROBERTS, RAUSCHE, 

GUNTER, VALDES, AND WOEHRLE

AND ORDER

Before The Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 8
2

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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 OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 41(A)(1)(A)(II)

Plaintiffs Dennis Bicek, Jose Chan, Jesus Alvarez, Eugene Geerlof, Bradley 

Moore, Benjamin Tilos, Jr., Sean Roberts, Timothy Rausch, Sue Gunter, Manuel Valdes, 

Jr., and James E. Woehrle (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant C&S Wholesale 

Grocers, Inc. and Tracy Logistics, LLC (“Defendants”), by and through their respective 

counsel of record, agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about December 10, 2012, Plaintiff Dennis Bicek filed a 

putative class action complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of 

California for the County of Sacramento, Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., 

Case No. 34-2012-00136674, alleging state law claims for unpaid overtime wages, 

unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, 

wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to 

keep requisite payroll records, and violations of the California Business and Professions 

Code § 17200, et seq.. On February 28, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California based on diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and under the Class Action Fairness 

Act.

WHEREAS, on or about July 18, 2013, Plaintiff Jose Chan filed a Complaint in 

the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California in Chan v. C&S 

Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Case No. BC515593, alleging state law claims for unpaid 

overtime wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid 

minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage 

statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and 

violations of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.. On August 

29, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 8
3

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

U.S.C. § 1332(a). On October 11, 2013, on Defendants’ motion, the matter was 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

WHEREAS, on or about July 19, 2013, Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez filed a Complaint 

in the San Joaquin County Superior Court of the State of California in Alvarez v. C&S 

Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Case No. 39-2013-00299543, alleging state law claims 

for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, 

unpaid minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage 

statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and 

violations of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.. On August 

29, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a).

WHEREAS, on or about July 30, 2013, Plaintiffs Eugene Geerlof, Bradley

Moore, Benjamin Tilos, Jr., Sean Roberts, Timothy Rausch, Sue Gunter, Manuel Valdes, 

Jr., and James E. Woehrle filed a complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of 

the State of California for the County of Los Angeles in Geerlof, et al. v. C&S Wholesale 

Grocers, Inc., et al., alleging claims under the California Labor Code for unpaid overtime 

wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum 

wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, 

failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and violations 

of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Case No. BC516796 

(“Action”). On September 6, 2013, Defendants removed this matter to the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California based on diversity of citizenship 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On October 11, 2013, on Defendants’ motion, 

the matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California.

///

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 8
4

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

WHEREAS, on April 14, 2014, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order, 

granting Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification [Document No. 67]. 

WHEREAS, on June 25, 2014, Chan v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 

2:13-cv-02140; Alvarez v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01798; Payne 

v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02153; and Geerlof v. C&S Wholesale 

Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-02175, were consolidated with the litigation entitled, 

Bicek v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-00411 (“Consolidated Action”)

[Document No. 76].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Bicek served, by mail, 

a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 81].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Gunter served, by mail, 

a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 82].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Rausche served, by 

mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 8
5

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 83]. 

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Woehrle served, by 

mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 84].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Moore served, by mail, 

a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 85].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Geerlof served, by 

mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 86].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Tilos served, by mail, a 

statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 8
6

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 87].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Roberts served, by 

mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 88].

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff Alvarez served, by 

mail, a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on November 7, 2014, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 89].

WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014, Plaintiff Chan served, by mail, a 

statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on January 14, 2015, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 92]. 

WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2014, Plaintiff Valdes served, by mail, 

a statutory offer of compromise to Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of his claims in this lawsuit with 

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 8
7

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants 

timely accepted Plaintiff’s statutory offer of compromise. Defendants filed a Notice 

of Accepted Offer of Judgment on January 14, 2015, including the offer, acceptance, 

and proof of service [Document No. 93].

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR 

COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Plaintiff Dennis Bicek’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 81];

2. Plaintiff Jose Chan’s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, in 

exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, 

[Document 92];

3. Plaintiff Jesus Alvarez’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 89];

4. Plaintiff Eugene Geerlof’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 86];

5. Plaintiff Bradley Moore’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 85];

6. Plaintiff Benjamin Tilos, Jr.’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 87];

7. Plaintiff Sean Roberts’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 88];

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 8
8

 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) AND ORDER

28464884v.1

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

8. Plaintiff Timothy Rausche’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 83];

9. Plaintiff Sue Gunter’s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice, 

in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by Defendants, 

[Document 82];

10. Plaintiff Manuel Valdes Jr.’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 93];

11. Plaintiff James E. Woerhle’s individual claims shall be dismissed with 

prejudice, in exchange for a waiver and full release of fees and costs incurred by 

Defendants, [Document 84];

12. Each party agrees to bear its own fees and costs related to this matter.

Dated: September 5, 2016 LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC

 /s/ Edwin Aiwazian Edwin Aiwazian Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 6, 2016 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

 /s/ Julie G. Yap

 Julie G. Yap

 Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN Document 110 Filed 09/22/16 Page 8 of 8