9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12 WILLIAM SHUFF, an individual; and JOHN HOWLAND, an individual, on behalf of 13 themselves and all others similarly situated, TENTATIVE RULING RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 Plaintiffs, TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS’ 15 vs. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
16 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., a California
corporation; RICHARD A. VOSS, an individual;
17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
18 Defendants.
23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. The 25 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 29, 2018, sets forth the following causes of 26 action: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest 27 Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to 28 Pay all Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (6) Failure to Furnish Accurate
TENTATIVE RULING RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE S
Hearing Date
October 11, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
12 WILLIAM SHUFF, an individual; and JOHN HOWLAND, an individual, on behalf of 13 themselves and all others similarly situated, TENTATIVE RULING RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 14 Plaintiffs, TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEFENDANTS’ 15 vs. MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
16 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., a California
corporation; RICHARD A. VOSS, an individual;
17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
18 Defendants.
23 I. INTRODUCTION
24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. The 25 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 29, 2018, sets forth the following causes of 26 action: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest 27 Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to 28 Pay all Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; (6) Failure to Furnish Accurate
TENTATIVE RULING RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE S