Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03215/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03215-9/pdf.json

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

---

CATHERINE A. CONWAY (SBN 98366)

GREGORY W. KNOPP (SBN 237615)

MARK R. CURIEL (SBN 222749)

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400

Los Angeles, California 90067-3012

Telephone: 310-229- 1000

Facsimile: 310-229- 1001

5 cconway(qJakingump.com

gknopp(q1akingump.com

6 mcuriel(q1akingump.com

JOEL M. COHN (DC BN 933713) (admitted pro hac vice)

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: 4000 Facsimile: 4288

10 jcohn(illakingump.com

Attorneys for Defendant STARBUCKS

CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROYA KOIKE and ADAM ODNERT, on

behalf of themselves and 

situated

Case No. C 06-3215 VRW

Plaintiffs

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER

RE DEFENDANT' S RESPONSE TO

. PLAINTIFFS' SECOND 

COMPLAINT

STARBUCKS CORPORATION Date Action Filed: April 4, 2006

Defendants.

6160754

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C-06-3215 VRW

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 89 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 94 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2006, the Court approved plaintiffs Roya Koike s and Adam

Odnert' s and defendant Starbucks Corporation s stipulation to grant plaintiffs leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint, adding an additional claim against Starbucks for civil penalties under Labor

Code Section 2699;

WHEREAS, the new claim for Section 2699 penalties is based on the same substantive Labor

Code violations alleged in plaintiffs' first amended complaint;

WHEREAS, the changes in the Second Amended Complaint are few in nature;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs filed and served their Second Amended Complaint on October 4, 2006;

and

WHEREAS, Starbucks previously filed an answer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint on

May 8, 2006 in San Francisco Superior Court, and re-filed that answer in this Court on May 15, 2006

(Exhibit D to Declaration of Gregory W. Knopp in Support of Removal);

III

6160754 

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE DEFENDANT' S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C-06-3215 VRW

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 89 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 94 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 4
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between plaintiffs and Starbucks, through their

attorneys of record, that Starbucks answer to the first amended complaint will be deemed the answer to

plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint , and Starbucks need not file a response to the Second Amended

Complaint.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: 11/6/ /)1- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS 

IJ 

& FELD LLP

By Lf/

Mark R. Curiel

Attorneys for Defendant

STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Dated: tV OV~ 

\

'"").(11, SPIRO MOSS BARNESS LLP

ry N. Karaslk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ROYA KOIKE and ADAM ODNERT

Dated:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

Chief Judge, United States District Court

6160754 

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSEDJ ORDER RE DEFENDANT' S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT C-06-3215 VRW

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 89 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 3 of 4

November 19, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 94 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 4
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and

not a party to the within action; my business address is: 2029 Century Park East, 24th Floor, Los

Angeles, CA 90067.

On November 7 2007, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER RE DEFENDANT' S RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested party(ies) below:

Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.

Spiro Moss Barness LLP

11377 W. Olympic Blvd., 5th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90064- 1683

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Roya Koike

Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.

Debes Law Finn

17 South Briar Hollow Lane

Suite 302

Houston, TX 77027

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Martin A. Shellist, Esq.

Shellist Lazarz, LLP

3/D International Building

1900 W. Loop South, Suite 1910

Houston, TX 77027

Attorneys for Plaintiff

using the following means:

I:8J BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. 

to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the not receive respective e-mail address(es) , within a reasonable

time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was

unsuccessful.

0 BY , I faxed the

documents to the respective fax number(s) ofthe party(ies) as stated above. No 

the fax machine that I used. A copy , is

attached.

(STATE) I declare 

is true and correct.

I:8J (FEDERAL) I 

direction the service was made.

Executed on November 7, 2007 at Los Angeles, California.

!Si~rureJ 

j h~ ili

ftO 

Sharon Cluff

IPrint Name of Person Executing Proof!

PROOF OF SERVICE

076900.05866158495

Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 89 Filed 11/07/2007 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:06-cv-03215-VRW Document 94 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 4