Roe v. SFBSC Management, LLC
| Jane Roe |
| SFBSC Management, LLC |
| 3:2014cv03616 |
| August 8, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| San Francisco |
| Laurel Beeler |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
286
ORDER.In the attached order, the court approves the class-action settlement. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 11/29/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER granting 159 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 163 Motion for Settlement.The attached order grants the motion for final approval and awards attorney's fees. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 9/14/2017)
|
|
Filing
151
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER granting 127 Motion for Settlement. The attached order approves the class-action settlement preliminarily. The parties' scheduling proposal (memorialized in the order at page 14) is measured in days linked to the filing date of this order. The court sets the final approval hearing for September 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 4/14/2017)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 54 Motion to Approve Hoffman-LaRoche Notice; denying 59 Motion to Add Proposed Class Representative; granting 60 Motion to Stay. The court grants BSC's motion to stay this case, as to all curr ent and potential plaintiffs, pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on BSC's appeal. The court denies the plaintiffs' motions to approve Hoffman-LaRoche notice and to add Jane Roe 3 as a proposed class representative. The court tolls the statute of limitation with respect to all present and potential plaintiffs from March 9, 2015 to the date on which the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2015)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 36 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 25 Motion to Compel Arbitration. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2015)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting in part and denying in part 17 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The court grants the plaintiffs' motion to proceed anonymously. The present and any future plaintiffs may use pseudonyms. The court denies the plaintiffs' motion to allow future plaintiffs to file FLSA consents under seal subject to the discussion in Part III of the attached order. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Roe v. SFBSC Management, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jane Roe | |
| Represented By: | Steven Gregory Tidrick |
| Represented By: | Joel Benjamin Young |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: SFBSC Management, LLC | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
