Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04858/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04858-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards Act

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

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

DONNA M. MEZIAS (SBN 111902) 

LIZ K. BERTKO (SBN 268128) 

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

580 California Street, Suite 1500 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415-765-9500 

Facsimile: 415-765-9501 

dmezias@akingump.com 

lbertko@akingump.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SHAUN SETAREH (SBN 205514) 

TUVIA KOROBKIN (SBN 268066) 

SETAREH LAW GROUP 

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 

Beverly Hills, CA 90212 

Telephone: (310) 888-7771 

Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 

shaun@setarehlaw.com 

tuvia@setarehlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL HENRY, on behalf of 

himself, all others similarly situated, 

and the general public, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-

50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 14-04858 JST 

[Assigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar 

for All Purposes] 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING 

DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 43 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 5
-1- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

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

Plaintiff Michael Henry (“plaintiff”) and defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

(“defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel of 

record, stipulate and represent as follows: 

1. On December 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification 

(“Class Motion”) as to plaintiff’s unpaid overtime claim. 

2. The hearing on the Class Motion was initially set for January 14, 2016 at 

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9, with defendant’s opposition due December 24, 2015. In its 

order entered December 16, 2015, the Court continued the hearing to January 14, 2016, 

but did not change the original opposition and reply deadlines. 

3. The overtime claim that is the subject of the Class Motion is the same 

claim that is the subject of defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. The 

Parties agree that, in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, defendant should 

not be required to respond to the Class Motion until the Court has ruled on the summary 

judgment motion. In addition, defendant’s counsel is taking time off through the 

upcoming holidays and the first part of January, and has other business commitments in 

the first half of January, and requested that the briefing schedule be adjusted to 

accommodate counsel’s vacations and scheduling conflicts. 

4. In the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement filed January 28, 2015 

(Dkt. 19), the parties stipulated that defendant would have no less than 60 days to 

oppose any class certification motion filed by plaintiff. That stipulation was 

incorporated into the Court’s Scheduling Order entered February 12, 2015 (Dkt. 21), 

which provides that defendant’s opposition would be due on May 2, 2016, 60 days after 

the class certification motion deadline of March 2, 2016. 

5. The parties have not previously requested a continuance of the hearing or 

other dates related to the Class Motion. 

NOW, THEREFORE, plaintiff and defendant hereby stipulate and agree as 

follows: 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 43 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 5
-2- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

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. That the hearing on the Class Motion, currently set for January 14, 2016, be 

taken off calendar and re-noticed after the Court rules on defendant’s pending summary 

judgment motion. 

2. That defendant’s opposition to the Class Motion shall be due on January 

28, 2016, or 30 days after the Court enters an order on the summary judgment motion, 

whichever is later. 

3. After the Court rules on defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff 

will re- notice the Class Motion for February 18, 2016, or such later hearing date as will 

provide defendant with at least 30 days from the entry of the Court’s order on the 

summary judgment motion to file its opposition to the Class Motion. 

Dated: December 18, 2015 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 

By/S/ Donna M. Mezias 

Donna M. Mezias 

Attorneys for defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

Dated: December 18, 2015 

By/S/ Shaun Setareh 

Shaun Setareh 

Attorneys for plaintiff Michael Henry 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 43 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 5
-3- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification, currently 

scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2016, shall be taken off calendar and re-noticed 

by plaintiff after the Court rules on defendant’s pending summary judgment motion. 

The new hearing date shall be February 18, 2016, or such later date as will provide 

defendant with at least 30 days from the entry of the Court’s order on the summary 

judgment motion to file its opposition to the Class Motion. 

2. Defendant’s opposition to the Class Motion shall be due 21 days prior to 

the re-noticed hearing date. Plaintiff’s reply shall be due ten days before the re-noticed 

hearing date. 

Dated: ________________________ 

 

HON. JON S. TIGAR 

United States District Judge 

December 21, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 43 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the 

age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 580 California 

Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, California 94104. On December 18, 2015, I served 

the foregoing document(s) described as: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION, on the interested party(ies) below, using the following 

means: 

All parties identified for Notice of Electronic Filing 

generated by the Court's CM/ECF system under the 

referenced case caption and number 

El BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court 

order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic 

transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the respective e-mail address(es) of 

the party(ies) as stated above. 

(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this 

court at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on December 18, 2015, at San Francisco, California. 

Jeremias V. Cordero 

Print Name of Person Executing Proof] [Signature] 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

110440458 vl 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-04858-JST Document 43 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 5