Allison et al v. Dolich et al
| Nancy Allison and Holly Burney |
| Scott Dolich and Park Kitchen LLC |
| 3:2014cv01005 |
| June 20, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| John V. Acosta |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 0216 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 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
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).
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
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 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.
