David Thomas v. Avis Budget Group LLC et al
| David Thomas |
| Avis Budget Group LLC and Does |
| 2:2008cv07397 |
| November 7, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Letts |
| Wistrich |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal - Labor/Mgmnt. Relations |
| 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
64
ORDER REMOVING CASE FROM ACTIVE CASELOAD by Judge A. Howard Matz, The Court having been advised by the Settlement Officer, the Honorable Andrew J. Wistrich, that the above-entitled action has been settled; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is re moved from this Court's active caseload without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 30 days, to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. This Court retains jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (smo)
|
|
Filing
51
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: At a hearing on June 18, 2012, this Court granted plaintiff David Thomas leave to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2012, and to file a renewed motion for class certification by October 1, 2012. T o date, neither document has been filed. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file a statement by no later than Tuesday, October 16, 2012, explaining why he has not made these filings. If the Defendant wishes to respond to Plaintiffs statement, he must do so by no later than two days after Plaintiffs statement is filed. (smo)
|
|
Filing
43
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz re Stipulation for Protective Order 41 , and good cause appearing, the Stipulation is HEREBY APPROVED AND SO ORDERED. Good cause exists for the issuance of this Protective Order, in thatthe Parties seek to pr otect confidential or proprietary information that may beproduced by the parties in response to discovery requests, including subpoenas for documents or testimony, as may be necessary during the above-entitled litigation. (See Protective Order for further details). (jp)
|
|
Filing
39
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification seeks to certify four sub-classes of Customer Service Representatives who were or are currently employed by Avis Budget. The motion does not even mention the purported class to which any sub-class would relate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, by no later than 4:00 p.m., on June 14, 2012, as follows: 1. That Plaintiff served and filed a proof of service as to Avis Budget G roup LLC and/or Avis Budget Car Rental LLC. Any such proof of service should be attached to Plaintiffs statement. 2. Assuming that Plaintiff has served any such entity, why Plaintiff has not sought an entry of Default as to it. 3. How any court could certify sub-classes absent a class. (smo)
|
|
Filing
35
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz. In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 1216356 (Cal. April 12, 2012), the Court VACATES the September 21, 2009 Order sta ying this case 26 . Plaintiff shall file a new motion for class certification by no later than May 14, 2012, and the hearing date shall be no earlier than 35 days after the motion is filed. Defendant's opposition brief will be due 14 days after the motion is filed, and Plaintiff will have 7 days to file a reply brief. (Case reopened. MD JS-5.) (kbr)
|
|
Filing
23
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): (No Proceedings held); The Court will continue to keep under submission this motion for class certification 19 pending the California Supreme Courts decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. The parties are ORDE RED to notify the Court within seven calendar days after such decision has been issued and at the same time and in the same document to provide a supplemental briefing not to exceed seven pages describing how the decision affects their position on th e pending motion. The Court further ORDERS the parties to set forth their respective views as to whether or not all remaining proceedings in the case should also be stayed. They shall do so by September 3, 2009. No hearing is necessary by Judge A. Howard Matz. (ir)
|
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 Central 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
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.
