Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00490-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonelle Lewis
Plaintiff
Starbucks Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2:07-CV-00490-MCE-DAD 

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

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 

cconway@akingump.com 

gknopp@akingump.com 

mcuriel@akingump.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JONELLE LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:07-CV-00490-MCE-DAD 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

Date Action Filed: March 12, 2007 

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff Jonelle Lewis’ unopposed motion 

for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, adding an additional claim against defendant Starbucks 

Corporation 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 Lewis’ original complaint; 

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

WHEREAS, Lewis filed and served her First Amended Complaint on October 25, 2007; and 

WHEREAS, Starbucks previously filed an answer to Lewis’ original complaint on April 10, 

2007; 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-00490-MCE -DAD Document 37 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 2
 2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2:07-CV-00490-MCE-DAD 

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 STIPULATED, by and between Starbucks and Lewis, through their attorneys 

of record, that Starbucks April 20, 2007 answer to the original complaint will be deemed the answer to 

Lewis’ First Amended Complaint, and Starbucks need not file a response to the First Amended 

Complaint. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: November 6, 2007_ AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

By / S / 

Mark R. Curiel 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION 

Dated: November 6, 2007_ SPIRO MOSS BARNESS LLP 

By / S / ____________

Gregory N. Karasik 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JONELLE LEWIS 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 9, 2007 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00490-MCE -DAD Document 37 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2