Koike

Koike v. Starbucks Corp.

Good Law
602 F. Supp. 2d 1158·2009 WL 635603·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24576
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 10, 2009C 06-3215 VRWCalifornia2,337 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

ORDER

On December 15, 2008, Shaun Nguyen moved to intervene under FRCP 24 for the limited purpose of appealing Doc. # 127, the order denying class certification in the above-captioned case. Doc. # 135. If the court grants his motion, Nguyen further requests ten days from the date of this order to file his notice of appeal. Doc. # 135 at 1. Defendant Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) opposes Nguyen’s motion to intervene. Doc. # 140.

I

This case began as a putative class action against Starbucks based on alleged violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code. Doc. # 25. Plaintiffs Roya Koike and Adam Odnert, as putative class representatives and former Starbucks assistant managers, alleged that Starbucks encouraged assistant managers at retail outlets not to work more than forty hours per week, effectively requiring them to perform some tasks off-the-clock, so that Starbucks would not have to pay them overtime wages. Id. at 6-10. Starbucks moved for summary judgment on Odnert’s claims on October 18, 2007, Doc. # 65, which the court granted because Odnert failed to show that Starbucks had actual or constructive knowledge that he had worked…

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.