Kirkpatrick v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2011-cv-00238

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re {{300}} Modified on 4/22/2011 [Transferred from California Northern on 9/7/2011.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 WILLIAM HELM, ET AL. No. C 08-01184 SI 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 8 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC., 10 Defendant. For the Northern District of California 11 / United States District Court 12 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 13 9, 2011 order denying plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Contrary to plaintiffs' 14 assertions, the Court did not fail to consider material facts with regard to numerosity and the community 15 work class. With regard to the on-call class, the Court considered plaintiffs' interpretation of the payroll 16 records, but determined that the records do not speak for themselves. Finally, with regard to the meal 17 break class, the Court considered both of plaintiffs' theories. The fact that some employees received 18 a 1-hour meal break is certainly relevant, as those employees are included in plaintiffs' proposed class 19 definition. The Court notes that the class definitions in this case were often a moving target, and that 20 a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a renewed motion for class 21 certification is not the time to request that the Court redefine a subclass. Accordingly, the Court 22 DENIES plaintiff's motion. (Docket No. 300). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 21, 2011 26 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 27 28