Allison et al v. Dolich et al
Plaintiff: Nancy Allison and Holly Burney
Defendant: Scott Dolich and Park Kitchen LLC
Case Number: 3:2014cv01005
Filed: June 20, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: John V. Acosta
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29:0216 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 239 OPINION and ORDER - Though "[i]t may have been [Plaintiffs'] preference to split [their] claim[s] into the state and federal law components and to try them each separately... [their] unilateral claim-splitting and the consequent multiplicit y of lawsuits the defendants were obligated to defend is precisely the evil sought to be avoided by the res judicata doctrine." Rennie, 294 Or. at 327. Plaintiffs seek an additional remedy to that obtained in the State Action, their federal clai ms are based on the same factual transaction as those previously adjudicated, and they could have, and had an obligation to, litigate their claims in one proceeding before one court. Because of the reasons elaborated, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Claim Preclusion 225 is GRANTED. DATED this 25th day of February, 2019, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg) (Main Document 239 replaced on 2/25/2019) (eo).
February 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 216 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs' motion 188 for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to Burney's retaliation claim on liability only and defendants' first and sixth affirmative defenses, and is DENIED in all other respects. DATED this 12th day of February, 2018, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
February 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 214 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs motion 208 for reconsideration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are entitled to the production of objective communications exchanged between Defendants and their legal counsel after March 17, 2014, with regard to the legality o f the tip pool under then existing case law, statutes, regulations, or rules, including a second deposition of Motschenbacher, if appropriate. Additionally, the court will conduct in-camera review of the six documents identified in Motschenbachers privilege log dated from March 12, 2014, to March 16, 2014. Defendants are ordered to provide these documents directly to the court for such review. DATED this 7th day of February, 2018, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
July 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 207 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion 165 to Compel is DENIED. Plaintiff's requested oral argument in their motion. The court finds this motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument pursuant to LR 7-1(d)(1) and denies the request. DATED this 7th day of July, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
September 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 129 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs motion 92 to conditionally certify this case as a collective action under the Act is GRANTED with the requirement Plaintiffs include the names and contact information for legal counsel representing Plaintiffs and Defe ndants. Defendants motion 103 for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief is DENIED. Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment on their federal minimum wage claim based on required participation in an invalid tip pool is granted with regard to liability only. DATED this 28th day of September, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta (peg)
December 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 86 OPINION and ORDER - Defendants' moiton 53 for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief for violation of the Act is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) is DENIED. DATED this 7th day of December, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
May 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 80 OPINION and ORDER - Plaintiffs' motion 64 to stay this action pending resolution of the State Action is DENIED. DATED this 29th day of May, 2015, by United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Allison et al v. Dolich et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nancy Allison
Represented By: Jon M. Egan
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 ]
Plaintiff: Holly Burney
Represented By: Jon M. Egan
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: Scott Dolich
Represented By: Karen L. O'Connor
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: Park Kitchen LLC
Represented By: John Baird Dudrey
Represented By: Karen L. O'Connor
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.


Why Is My Information Online?