Timothy Alders v. YUM Brands, Inc.

I. Background

This dispute comes before the Court once again. See generally Alders v. Yum! Brands Inc., No. CV 21-1191 PSG (DFMx) (“Alders I”). Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 1995 to 2020. See Complaint, Dkt. # 1-3, ¶¶ 17–22 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff alleges that throughout this 25- year period, Defendants improperly misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor as 1 On November 22, 2022, Defendants filed an ex parte application to modify the time to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss and Joint Rule 26(f) report. See generally Dkt. # 28. Because the Court remands the matter to state court, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ ex parte application. CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 6 Case 8:22-cv-01303-PSG-DFM Document Filed 11/23/ Page 2 of Page ID #:2637

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 22-1303 PSG (DFMx) Date November 23, 2022 Title Alders v. Yum! Brands, Inc. et al. opposed to an employee, and as a result, Plaintiff was ineligible to participate in Defendants’ benefit plans. See id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff…