Michael L. Taylor; Dilawar Khan; Volena Glover-Hale; Manuel Montoya, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
AutoZone Inc., a Tennessee corporation; AutoZone Inc., a Nevada corporation; AutoZoners LLC, Defendants.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
June 20, 2012.
June 20, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael L Taylor, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback LLP — Seattle, WA, Benjamin B Gould, Keller Rohrback LLP, Samuel S Deskin,, Deskin Law Firm PLC, T David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP & Mark D Samson, Keller Rohrback PLC.
Dilawar Khan, on behalf of himself and other person similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback LLP — Seattle, WA, Benjamin B Gould, Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark D Samson, Keller Rohrback PLC & T David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP.
Volena Glover-Hale, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback LLP — Seattle, WA, Benjamin B Gould, Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark D Samson, Keller Rohrback PLC & T David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP.
Manuel Montoya, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback LLP — Seattle, WA, Benjamin B Gould, Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark D Samson, Keller Rohrback PLC & T David Copley, Keller Rohrback LLP.
AutoZone Incorporated, a Tennessee corporation authorized to do business in Arizona, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Voss,, Littler Mendelson PC & Laurent Richard George Badoux, Littler Mendelson PC.
AutoZoners LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Laurent Richard George Badoux, Littler Mendelson PC.
AutoZone Incorporated, a Nevada Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurent Richard George Badoux, Littler Mendelson PC.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it plaintiffs' motion to review clerk's taxation of costs (doc. 292), defendants' response (doc. 293), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 294). In response to our order dated June 8, 2012 (doc. 295), plaintiffs submitted declarations from the named plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel (docs. 296, 299). Finally, we have before us plaintiffs' motion to seal (doc. 297).
As outlined in our June...
Let's get started
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.
