Free Supplement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Lydia A. Jones - 017178 ROGERS & THEOBALD LLP 2 The Camelback Esplanade, Suite 850 2425 East Camelback Road 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1

Telephone: (602) 852-5582 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARIZONA DISTRICT KAYE HUTTON, as an individual and representative of a class consisting of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. The Response claims at footnote 7 that only four of the existing opt-ins have a misclassification claim under the two-year statute of limitations. The Response also claims at footnote 1 that even given the ten-month stay in the action, no new opt-in would have a misclassification claim under the three-year statute of limitations. [See Response.] The Response's calculations in each of these footnotes do not, however, include the tolling agreement between the parties, which continued the tolling of the statute of limitations for an additional sixty (60) days after the ten month stay. See Court Order dated December 22, 2004. Specifically, the stay was lifted on December 22, 2004, but the statute of limitations was tolled for an additional sixty (60) days, or through February 21, 2004. No. CV2003-2262-PHX-ROS PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPAND THE CONDITIONAL COLLECTIVE ACTION

Case 2:03-cv-02262-ROS

Document 198

Filed 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

The opt-in consent forms for the existing opt-ins were filed with this Court on February 18, 2005, prior to the expiration of the tolling agreement. Accordingly, even under the two-year statute of limitations, all existing opt-ins have a misclassification claim beginning at least as early as February 18, 2002. With respect to the application of the three-year statute of limitations to any future opt-ins, even if this Court, as the Response assumes, rules on the motion in November 2005, and even if the Defendant provides to Plaintiff the names and addresses of the potential opt-ins within ten (10) days of the Court's ruling, the Notices would be sent by mid-December, with a return date in January 2006. For any new opt-in that files an opt-in consent form in January 2006, the application of the three year statute of limitation, plus the tolling of 12 months (meaning the ten month stay plus sixty (60) days) means that any new opt-ins would have a misclassification claim beginning at least as early as January 2002. The Response is simply incorrect to suggest that the existing opt-ins do not

15

currently have a misclassification claim beginning at least as early as February 18,
16

2002 and any future opt-ins would not have a misclassification beginning at least as
17

early as January 2002.
18 19 20 21

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005. ROGERS & THEOBALD LLP
By /s/ Lydia A. Jones

22 23 24 25 26

Lydia A. Jones The Camelback Esplanade, Suite 850 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 852-5582 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:03-cv-02262-ROS

Document 198 2 Filed 12/02/2005

Page 2 of 2