Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00081/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00081-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alpha Respiratory Inc.
Defendant
Christina Culley
Plaintiff
Lincare Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA CULLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINCARE INC., ALPHA 

RESPIRATORY INC., and DOES 1 

THROUGH 50,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK

ORDER CLARIFYING THE GRANTING 

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF PENDENCY 

OF CLASS ACTION TO THE CERTIFIED 

CLASS

On September 21, 2016, Defendants filed an ex parte request for clarification, 

ECF No. 64, of this Court’s prior order approving the form of class notice, ECF No. 63. 

According to Defendants, the class notice approved by this Court is defective because it 

contains “two different class definitions” and the putative class members “may be 

confused.” Defs.’ Ex Parte Appl. 2:26–27, ECF No. 64. Defendants are incorrect. “[A]ll 

persons employed by Defendants as non-exempt” is perfectly consistent with “all those 

individuals employed by Defendant Alpha Respiratory Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Defendant Lincare, Inc.” “Defendants” is clearly a reference to the first sentence of the 

notice describing Alpha Repiratory Inc.’s relationship to Lincare, Inc.

At the same time, it is unclear to the Court why Plaintiffs would not be amenable 

to wording the sentence under “DEFINITION OF THE CLASS” as Defendants suggest, 

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 66 Filed 09/27/16 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

i.e., reiterating that the class consists of “all those individuals employed by Defendant 

Alpha Respiratory Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Lincare, Inc.” There is 

no reason the parties should need this Court’s input, especially when the Court is as 

heavily impacted as this one, to resolve such a trivial dispute. To the contrary, this is a 

textbook example of a question that should have been addressed by stipulation

submitted for the Court’s approval, rather than by ex parte request, and the Court 

expects more cooperative conduct going forward. 

That said, because Defendants insist that the approved class notice is somehow 

defective and because Plaintiffs refuse to agree to Defendants’ modest suggested 

change, this Court hereby orders that the requested edit to the notice be made. 

Accordingly, the DEFINITION OF THE CLASS shall be amended to read, “On August 

10, 2016, the Court ordered that the Lawsuit may proceed as a class action on behalf of 

all persons employed by Defendant Alpha Respiratory Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Defendant Lincare, Inc., as non-exempt during the Class Period.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK Document 66 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2