Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00815/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00815-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00815-WHA 

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 

CARI A. COHORN (State Bar No. 249056) 

COHORN LAW 

101 California Street, Suite 2710 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 993-9005 

Fax: (415) 365-9650 

Email: cohorn@cohornlaw.com 

KATHARINE CHAO (State Bar No. 247571) 

CHAO LEGAL 

1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (415) 738-5352 

Fax: (415) 233-4859 

Email: kathy@chaolegal.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LANDRY’S, INC., a Delaware corporation, and 

McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT 

CORP, a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:15-CV-00815-WHA 

STIPULATION FOR ORDER 

SHORTENING TIME FOR BRIEFING 

ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

PURSUANT TO FRCP 60; [PROPOSED] 

ORDER 

[Dkt. No. 110] 

 

Complaint filed: February 23, 2015 

Trial date: July 5, 2016 

Case 3:15-cv-00815-WHA Document 112 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 3
 - 1 - 

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00815-WHA

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 Plaintiff Mouang Saechao filed a motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 64) on 

January 28, 2016, seeking to certify classes with respect to, inter alia, alleged meal period 

violations, rest period violations, and Defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corporation’s 

(“MSRC” or “Defendant”) alleged failure to pay split shift premium pay to certain eligible 

employees; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff also sought to certify a class with respect to a claim for waiting time 

penalties based on MSRC’s alleged failure to timely pay employees separating from their 

employment with MSRC all premium pay for non-provided meal periods, non-provided rest 

periods, and/or split shifts; 

WHEREAS the Court entered an Order (Dkt. No. 98) on March 15, 2016 certifying classes 

as to each of the aforementioned claims and referring to the claim for waiting time penalties as 

“derivative of the meal-break, rest-break, and split-shift classes” (id. at 14:15-17) but later defining 

the waiting time class as: 

4. All hourly, non-exempt former employees at Spenger’s who resigned or were 

terminated between February 23, 2012, and February 23, 2015, and who are 

members of the meal-break or rest-break classes. 

(id. at p. 23, ¶ 4); 

 WHEREAS Plaintiff contends that the omission from Paragraph 4 of any reference to the 

split-shift class was a clerical error or oversight that may be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(a) and files concurrently herewith an administrative motion seeking such relief 

(Dkt. No. 110); 

 WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the issue of the correct definition of the 

waiting time class needs to be resolved before the issuance of the Class Notice, currently scheduled 

for April 14, 2016; 

 WHEREAS MSRC opposes Plaintiff’s motion; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their 

respective counsel of record, that the four-day period provided for by Civil Local Rule 7-11(b) for 

Case 3:15-cv-00815-WHA Document 112 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 3
 - 2 - 

STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00815-WHA

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 

responding to Plaintiff’s motion (by filing either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition) 

shall be shortened to one day so that the Court may rule on the matter as soon as possible. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California, Cari A. Cohorn, counsel for Plaintiff and the Class, attests that she has 

obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Nicholas Murray, counsel for MSRC, on 

March 30, 2016. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: March 30, 2016 COHORN LAW 

By: /s/ Cari A. Cohorn___________________ 

Cari A. Cohorn 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

DATED: March 30, 2016 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

By: /s/ Nicholas Murray 

Nicholas Murray 

Attorneys for Defendant 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________ 

The Honorable William H. Alsup 

United States District Judge 

 

March 31, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-00815-WHA Document 112 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3