Timeline-Blog D&T Lawsuit

Amended Complaint & Amended Motion for Class Certification Due (by leave of Court): “[T]his is a case where either all or at least a substantial part of it is appropriate for class treatment…."  HOWEVER, because she considers the stakes involved in this case so significant, Judge Fischer wants class representatives who can “adequately represent these good, hard working, over-worked [employees], perhaps over-worked without the appropriate pay.”   ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE -- see full details here.

Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification, CONTINUED (postponed) to this date by the Court.

Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification, CONTINUED (postponed) to this date by the Court.

SCHEDULED: Court hearing on Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification.

Plaintiff files his REPLY  to Defendants' Opposition to Motion For Class Certification.

Defendants file their OPPOSITION  To Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification.

Plaintiff files his MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION  under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23.

By Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the trial schedule is set and both parties request a trial date of October 21, 2008.

U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer, Central District of California, DENIES Plaintiff's MOTION FOR REMAND to the Superior Court of Los Angeles. The United States District Court retains jurisdiction based on diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Plaintiff files a MOTION FOR REMAND to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Concurrent with their ANSWER in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Defendants file a NOTICE OF REMOVAL in the United States District Court, Central District of California, on the grounds of diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Defendants ANSWER in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County with a general denial.

COMPLAINT filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County by STEPAN MEKHITARIAN (named Plaintiff), on behalf of all others similarly situated (the class).