3:23-cv-00770•Mobley v. Workday, Inc.
Full text
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEREK MOBLEY, Plaintiff, v. WORKDAY, INC., Defendant. Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY Re: Dkt. Nos. 209, 213 Workday seeks to stay the notice process in this action on the grounds that the Supreme Court is considering petitions for certiorari in two unrelated cases that seek clarification regarding the standard that governs notice in an ADEA collective action. Workday states that the Supreme Court “is likely to grant certiorari” and if it does, “there is more than a fair probability the Court will overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ‘lenient standard’” which the Court has applied in this case. (Dkt. No. 209 at 5.) The Court, in its discretion, declines to stay the notice process. The harm that Workday describes is speculative at this stage, given the chain of events that would need to occur in unrelated cases before it would be necessary to reassess the notice process in this case. On the other hand, Plaintiffs have expended significant resources to maintain this action, and would be harmed by the lengthy delay that Workday seeks to impose. The Motion to Stay is DENIED. Workday’s Emergency Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing (Dkt. No. 213) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2025 RITA F. LIN United States District Judge Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 216 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 1
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.