Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02328/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02328-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:1938 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

DAVID WAISBEIN, individually, and on

behalf of other members of the general

public similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-02328 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; SETTING

HEARING DATE

(Docket No. 22)

Before the Court is the motion filed August 15, 2007 by defendant UBS Financial

Services Inc. (“UBS”) for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order, filed

earlier the same date, granting in part and denying in part UBS’s motion to dismiss or, in

the alternative, to strike the class or representative allegations from plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint. UBS points out that the Court did not have the opportunity to

consider the arguments set forth in UBS’s reply, and requests that the Court reconsider its

August 15, 2007 order in light of such arguments.

UBS’s motion to dismiss was filed in the United States District Court for the Central

District of California, and was renoticed for hearing before the undersigned after the abovetitled action was transferred to this District. The paper file transferred to this Court does not

include UBS’s reply; likewise, the certified copy of the docket sheet accompanying the

paper file contains no reference to a reply. (See Docket No. 1.) After UBS renoticed its

Case 3:07-cv-02328-MMC Document 28 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

motion for hearing before the undersigned, noting that the “matter ha[d] been fully briefed,”

(see Docket No. 11), court staff telephoned UBS’s counsel, as a courtesy, and left a

message informing counsel that the Northern District had no record of a reply, and

requesting that counsel file any reply with this Court. Defendants thereafter did not file a

copy of their reply, or otherwise provide the Court with a copy thereof. Accordingly, the

Court issued its August 15, 2007 order based solely on the arguments set forth in the

motion and opposition. 

As UBS now has demonstrated, albeit belatedly, that it did file a reply in the Central

District before the action was transferred to this District, and has provided the Court with a

copy thereof, the Court will grant UBS’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

As UBS does not seek to submit new argument, but, rather, asks only that the Court

consider the arguments set forth in its reply, the Court deems UBS’s motion for leave to file

a motion for reconsideration to constitute UBS’s motion for reconsideration.

The Court, now having read and considered the arguments set forth in UBS’s reply, 

finds the matter appropriate for oral argument. Accordingly, the parties shall appear before

the Court on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for hearing on said matter.

This order terminates Docket No. 22. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02328-MMC Document 28 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2