Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05476/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05476-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lac Anh Le
Plaintiff
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
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

Plaintiff did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of her response. For future

reference, plaintiff is reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing Orders: “In

all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed

electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later than

noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly marked

with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAC ANH LE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

Defendant

 /

No. C-07-5476 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PARTIES

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE FURTHER

BRIEFING ON ISSUE OF WHETHER

ACTION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED

TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

On March 4, 2008, the Court ordered the parties to show cause, no later than March

24, 2008, why the instant action should not be transferred to the Eastern District of

California in light of the pendency therein of Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 6-

CV-02376 LKK GGH. On March 24, 2008, the parties filed their respective responses.1

On March 26, 2008, defendant filed a supplemental response, in which it informed

the Court that the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, in the Campbell action, issued an order

Case 3:07-cv-05476-MMC Document 36 Filed 03/28/08 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

The supplemental brief shall not be a letter brief and shall comply with Civil Local

Rule 3-4.

2

on March 25, 2008, in which he certified a class, albeit a more narrowly-defined class than

that originally requested by the plaintiffs therein. Defendant requests the Court allow the

parties an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing on the effect of said order on the

instant action.

Good cause appearing, defendant’s request is hereby GRANTED, and each party is

hereby afforded the opportunity to file, no later than April 11, 2008, a supplemental brief not

to exceed five pages,2

 to address the effect of Judge Karlton’s March 25, 2008 order on the

issue of whether the instant action should be transferred to the Eastern District of

California. In particular, the parties shall indicate whether plaintiff is a member of the

certified class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05476-MMC Document 36 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2