Silveira et al v. State of California et al

Filing 30

STIPULATION and Joint Request to Continue Mandatory Scheduling Conference; ORDER - Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 6/13/2013 to September 16, 2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/15/2013. (Herman, H)

1

7

BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C.
Maxwell M. Blecher (State Bar No. 26202)
[e-mail]
Donald R. Pepperman (State Bar No. 109809)
[e-mail]
Majed Dakak (State Bar No. 271875)
[e-mail]
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]

8

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS and CONSENTERS

9

(Appearances for Additional Counsel on Next Page)

2
3
4
5
6

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

FRESNO DIVISION

13
14

CARLOS SILVEIRA, GEORGETTE
PICKETT, and CHARLES HUGHES, as
individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

15

Case No. 1:13-CV-00084-AWI-BAM
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST
TO CONTINUE MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Plaintiffs,
16
vs.
17
18
19
20

Judge:
Courtroom:

Barbara A. McAuliffe
8

JEFFREY A. BEARD, in his capacity as the
Secretary of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; and DOES 2
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175)
[e-mail]
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
HYUN LEGAL, APC
Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240)
[e-mail]
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

1

Whereas, on January 16, 2013, plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action;

2

Whereas, on February 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint in this action;

3

Whereas, on March 11, 2013, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs’ First

4

Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) in this action;

5

Whereas, by order dated April 3, 2013, this Court continued the mandatory scheduling

6

conference previously set for May 1, 2013 to June 13, 2013, so that the mandatory scheduling

7

conference could be held after this Court has issued an order on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss;

8
9
10

Whereas, by order dated April 12, 2013, the Honorable Judge Ishii granted plaintiffs’ ex parte
request to file a sur-reply in relation to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and allowed defendants until
April 19, 2013 to respond to plaintiffs’ sur-reply.

11

Whereas, in the same order dated April 12, 2013, the Honorable Judge Ishii in granting

12

plaintiffs’ ex parte request to file a sur-reply stated that because of the weight of the Court’s docket, no

13

decision on the Motion to Dismiss should be expected for several weeks.

14

Whereas, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now requires the parties to confer over

15

a proposed discovery plan by May 24, 2013, submit a discovery plan 14 days afterwards, and make

16

initial disclosures by June 7, 2013;

17

Whereas, defendant believes that the Court’s ruling on defendant’s motion could affect the

18

number and scope of relevant issues in dispute, the scope of discovery, and affect the scheduling of

19

dispositive motions, prospects for settlement and trial procedures of this action;

20
21

Whereas, it is plaintiffs’ position that they have adequately pled their claims such that they
believe that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be denied;

22

Whereas, the parties, having met and conferred, nevertheless agree that continuing the

23

mandatory scheduling conference, and related deadlines, until after this Court has issued an order on

24

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will conserve the resources of the court and the parties;

25

Accordingly, the parties to this action, through their respective attorneys of record, hereby

26

STIPULATE and JOINTLY REQUEST that the Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference,

27
28

3
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

1

and related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report and discovery plan, and

2

deadline to provide initial disclosures, until a date after this Court has issued an order on defendant’s

3

Motion to Dismiss.

4
5

Dated:

May 14, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

6

JOAN A. MARKOFF
Chief Counsel

7

WILL M. YAMADA
Deputy Chief Counsel

8
By: _/s/ David D. King_______________
DAVID D. KING,
Labor Relations Counsel
Attorney for Defendant

9
10
11
12
13
14

Dated:

May 14, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Majed Dakak
MAJED DAKAK
Attorney for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

1

ORDER

2

In consideration of the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Request to Continue the Mandatory

3

Scheduling Conference, and related deadlines, and good cause having been shown, it is ORDERED that

4

the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, currently set for June 13, 2013, is CONTINUED to September

5

16, 2013, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 8, before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.

6

The related deadlines to meet and confer and submit a Joint Scheduling Report, to provide initial

7

disclosures, and to meet and confer and provide a written discovery plan under Rule 12 of the Federal

8

Rules of Civil Procedure, are similarly continued.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 15, 2013

A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

DEAC_Signature-END:

13

10c20kb8554

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_

5
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE