Haro

Haro v. Walmart Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 20231:21-cv-00239California1,722 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 AMADO HARO and ROCHELLE No. 1:21-cv-00239-ADA-SKO ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs, THAT PLAINIFFS’ MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS

v. COUNSEL BE GRANTED WALMART, INC., (Doc. 72) Defendant. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is the unopposed motion of Plaintiffs Amado Haro and Rochelle Ortega (“Plaintiffs”) for appointment of interim class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). (Doc. 72.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ motion be GRANTED. II. BACKGROUND On February 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this class and collective action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that Walmart implemented an unlawful policy requiring its non-exempt, hourly workers to undergo COVID-19…

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.