1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. DOUGLAS v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES LLC
 

DOUGLAS v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES LLC

Case No. C12-1798-JCC.

KRISTY DOUGLAS and TYSHEKA RICHARD, Plaintiffs, v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

July 10, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kristy Douglas, Plaintiff, represented by Erika L. Nusser , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC, Marc C Cote , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC, Toby James Marshall , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC & Daniel Foster Johnson , BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

Tysheka Richard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erika L. Nusser , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC, Marc C Cote , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC, Toby James Marshall , TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC & Daniel Foster Johnson , BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

Xerox Business Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Ryan Drew Redekopp , K&L GATES LLP, Daniel P Hurley , K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M Madden , K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn , K&L GATES LLP.

Livebridge, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Drew Redekopp , K&L GATES LLP, Daniel P Hurley , K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M Madden , K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn , K&L GATES LLP.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Drew Redekopp , K&L GATES LLP, Daniel P Hurley , K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M Madden , K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn , K&L GATES LLP.

Affiliated Computer Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Ryan Drew Redekopp , K&L GATES LLP, Daniel P Hurley , K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M Madden , K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn , K&L GATES LLP.

ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification (Dkt. No. 87), Defendant's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 148), Plaintiffs' motion to strike (Dkt. No. 135), and Defendants' motion to file surreply (Dkt. No. 160). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases