Case 0:08-cv-01154-PJS-JSM Document 84 Filed 10/15/09 Page 1 of 2

Case 0:08-cv-01154-PJS-JSM Document 84 Filed 10/15/09 Page 2 of 2

 Case 0:08-cv-01154-PJS-JSM Document 85 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Chambers of Warren E. Burger U.S. Courthouse
PATRICK J. SCHILTZ 316 North Robert Street
DISTRICT JUDGE St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 848-1900

October 16, 2009

Ms. E. Michelle Drake Mr. Daniel L. Nash

Ms. Jessica J. Clay Mr. Gregory W. Knopp
Mr. Paul J. Lukas Ms. Jessica W. P D’Arrigo
Nichols Kaster, PLLP Mr. Nathan J. Oleson
80 South 8th Street - Suite 4600 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242 1333 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036-1564

Mr. Joseph G. Schmitt

Mr. Mark J. Girouard
Halleland Lewis Nilan & Johnson, PA
220 South 6th Street - Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4501

Re: Delsing, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee Corp.

Case File No. 08-CV-1154 (PJS/JSM)

Dear Counsel:

I write in response to Mr. Knopp’s letter of yesterday.

My order of September 30, 2009, concluded by stating that, “[w]ith respect to Count I of
plaintiffs' second amended complaint, for violation of the tip-sharing prohibition in Minn. Stat.
§ 177.24, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED on the question of liability, to the extent described
above.” “To the extent described above” refers, of course, to the body of my order, and my order
held simply that “Starbucks's policy violates Minnesota law by requiring employees who work on
a particular shift to share tips received on that shift with employees who do not work on that
shift.”

Nothing in my order addresses the consequences of this holding. Although I have

decided that Starbucks violated Minnesota law, I have not decided whether plaintiffs were
harmed by that violation of Minnesota law, or even whether plaintiffs need to show that they
were harmed by that violation of Minnesota law. I have not decided whether plaintiffs are
entitled to receive damages of any kind — compensatory, punitive, or nominal. I have not
decided whether plaintiffs are entitled to receive equitable relief. And I have not decided
 Case 0:08-cv-01154-PJS-JSM Document 85 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 2

All Counsel
October 16, 2009
Page 2

whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs. All of those issues
remain open.

I hope this provides the clarification sought by Mr. Knopp.

Sincerely,

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge