Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp.

Filing 54

Joint Stipulation to amend scheduling order, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/08/2014. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by 6/23/2014; Oppositions Deadline: 8/13/2014; Reply Briefs due by 8/20/2014; Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)
[e-mail]
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 711
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Bernardina Rodriguez

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO

10
11
12

BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated,

13
Plaintiff,

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

vs.
TACO BELL CORP, a California
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No: 1:13-CV-01498-SAB
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3

JOINT STIPULATION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:

4

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 143, Plaintiff Bernardina Rodriguez

5

("Rodriguez") and Defendant Taco Bell Corp. ("Taco Bell") (collectively, the “Parties”), by and

6

through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to amend the discovery briefing schedule

7

with limited exceptions, in recognition of the following:

8

WHEREAS ON June 25, 2013, Rodriguez filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

9

in which she alleges the following claims for relief for herself and on behalf of seven subclasses

10

of current and former hourly employees who worked at Taco Bell corporately-owned restaurants

11

in California:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(a) Penalties for failure to provide meal periods to hourly restaurant workers from
May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit;
(b) Penalties for failure to provide rest periods to hourly restaurant workers from
May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit;
(c) Violation of Labor Code §§510, 1194 and 1198 (unpaid minimum and
overtime wages) from May 15, 2009 until the resolution of the lawsuit;
(d) Failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor Code § 226(a);
(e) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (non-payment of wages
upon termination) from May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit;
(f) Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

21

seeking “restitution” during a period that commences on May 15, 2009, and

22

which extends until the resolution of the lawsuit;

23

(g) Penalties under PAGA, Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. on behalf of all aggrieved

24

employees from June 25, 2012 to the resolution of the lawsuit (Rodriguez seeks

25

penalties for violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 223,

26

226(a), 226.7, 256, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1198); and

27

(h) Failure to include employee meal discounts in California non-exempt

28

employees’ regular rate for the purposes of calculating overtime wage

1

1
2
3

payments.
WHEREAS ON July 9, 2013, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the FAC
in its entirety;

4

WHEREAS ON October 30, 2013, the Court denied Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss;

5

WHEREAS the Parties have extensively met and conferred by telephone and have agreed

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

to engage in limited formal and informal discovery and to prepare dispositive pre-trial motions
regarding whether Taco Bell’s voluntary discounted meal program violates California law or
impacts Taco Bell’s California employees’ overtime pay;
WHEREAS the Parties have propounded written discovery, but have subsequently agreed
to stay all discovery, with the following limited exceptions related to Taco Bell’s discounted
meal policy and all related and/or derivative claims:
a. Rodriguez will depose Taco Bell pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6);
b. Taco Bell will depose Rodriguez; and Taco Bell will produce its employee meal

13

discount policy and make available for inspection records of California

14

employees’ discounted meals.

15

c. The Parties will provide verified responses to all relevant written discovery

16

relating to the claims that will be adjudicated on cross motions for summary

17

judgment/adjudication.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS the Parties agreed to stipulate to a protective order governing the production
and use of confidential and private documents prior to the exchange of discovery;
WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to vacate current class certification deadlines and
continue to meet and confer regarding the dispositive pre-trial motions;
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2014 the Parties agreed and the Court has ordered the parties to
file dispositive pre-trial motions regarding Taco Bell’s voluntary discounted meal program and
related claims pursuant to the following briefing schedule:
a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed June 18, 2014.
b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on July 25, 2014.
c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 8, 2014.
d. The requested hearing date is September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.
2

1

THE PARTIES NOW agree and request to amend the briefing schedule as follows:

2

a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed July 23, 2014.

3

b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on August 13, 2014.

4

c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 20, 2014.

5

d. The requested hearing date to remain on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

6

before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

7
8
9

THE PARTIES SO STIPULATE.

Dated: May 8, 2014

SETAREH LAW GROUP

10
By:

11
12
13

/s/ Shaun Setareh
Shaun Setareh
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Bernardina Rodriguez

14
15
16

Dated: May 8, 2014

SHEPPARD MULLIN

17
18
19
20

By:

/s/ Nora K. Stiles
Nora K. Stiles
Attorneys for Defendant,
Taco Bell Corp.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO

14
15
16

BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated,

Case No: 1:13-CV-01498-SAB
ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO
AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

17
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22

vs.
TACO BELL CORP, a California
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

1
2
3

ORDER
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Having considered the Joint Stipulation between counsel for Plaintiff Bernardina

4

Rodriguez and Defendant Taco Bell Corp. to Amend the Scheduling Order, and good

5

cause appearing therefore, this Court hereby ORDERS that the that the briefing schedule

6

regarding discovery, as follows:

7

a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed July 23, 2014.

8

b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on August 13, 2014.

9

c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 20, 2014.
d. The requested hearing date to remain on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

10

before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2