Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

following up on a class action suit

  • 04-11-2013 2:02am
    #1
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭


    Im not involved with this in any way, Im just researching it, but I found this information

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03135/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03135-1/content-detail.html

    this regarding a suit filed in CA in which gamestop employees were subjected to security checks while they were off the clock.

    theres some legal language at the bottom of the webpage that, frankly, I don't know what it means in english. I havent heard anything about the case in a couple years - was this case ever resolved, did they quietly dismiss it?


Comments

  • #2
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    April 9, 2012

    ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/9/12; Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order shortening time is denied.

    ex parte means only the plaintiff was present for the application.

    Further, Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with a duly noticed opportunity to respond to his argument that Defendants' motion to compel arbitration should not be decided until after the NLRB resolves Plaintiff's unfair labor practice charge.

    Defendants want to go to arbitration (probably somewhat like a tribunal), Plaintiff is arguing against it and Defendant has not yet had an opportunity to respond.

    However, since Plaintiff argues in his opposition to Defendants' motion to compel arbitration that the class action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it violates the National Labor Relations Act, and the same issue is involved in Plaintiff's stay motion, the Court has decided to hear Plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings and Defendants motion to compel arbitration commencing at 9 a.m. on June 4, 2012; therefore, the hearing for Defendants' motion to compel arbitration scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.(Matson, R)

    A new date of 4/6/12 is given to hear the arguments therefore parties do no need to attend on 16/4/12


    May 25, 2012

    ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/24/2012 GRANTING 28 Motion to Stay; STAYING CASE during the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB)adjudication of Plaintiff's unfair labor practices charge; ORDERING parties to file a Joint Status Report within 10 days of the NLRB's final decision; DEEMING 11 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Proceedings as WITHDRAWN. (Michel, G)

    Case is put on hold while the NLRB make their decision.


Advertisement