Helm

Helm v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.

Caution

696 F. Supp. 2d 1057·2009 WL 2337529·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65523

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 29, 2009C 08-01184 SI, C 08-1190 SICalifornia10,452 words

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, and DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

On May 29, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss and defendants’ motions for sanctions. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

These related cases involve potential class action claims for unpaid wages brought by employees against two primary entities, Alderwoods Group, Inc. (“Aider-woods”) and Service Corporation International (“SCI”). (SCI bought Alderwoods in 2006.) The cases have their origins in a case filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Prise v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., No. 06-1641 (“Prise I”). That case, which is still pending before Judge Joy Flowers Conti, initially included both state and federal claims against Alderwoods, SCI, and other entities. On June 8, 2007, Judge Conti declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.