Nordstrom

ORDER

We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to decide the three certified questions set forth in Part' II of this Order, below. ■ See Cal. R. Ct. 8.548. The answers to these questions of California law would be dis-positive of the appeal before us, and no clear controlling California precedent exists. Id. Moreover, because the questions that we certify are of extreme importance to tens of thousands of employees in California, considerations of comity and federalism suggest that the court of last resort in California, rather than our court, should have the opportunity to answer the questions in the first instance. See Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 739 F.3d 1192, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2013); Klein v. United States, 537 F.3d 1027, 1028 (9th Cir.2008).

I. Administrative Information

We provide the following information in accordance with California Rule of Court 8.548(b)(1):

The consolidated caption for these cases is:

CHRISTOPHER MENDOZA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

MEAGAN GORDON, Plaintiff-Interve-nor /Appellant,

v.

NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington Corporation authorized to…