Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. et al

Filing 96

ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONTINUE OR DENY DEFENDANT BEDROSIAN FARMS LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The hearing on Bedrosian's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 91) set for September 10, 2018, and t he hearing on Gomez's Rule 56(d) motion (Doc. No. 94) set for September 21, 2018, are vacated. Bedrosian and Jacobo shall file by September 6, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Gomez's Rule 56(d) motion. Any reply from Gomez shall be filed by September 13, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/29/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MARISOL GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
J. JACOBO FARM LABOR
CONTRACTOR, INC. and BEDROSIAN
FARMS LLC,

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01489-AWI-BAM
ORDER FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE OR DENY DEFENDANT
BEDROSIAN FARMS LLC’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 94)

Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is Defendant Bedrosian Farms LLC’s motion for summary judgment

18

made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, which asks the Court to grant summary judgment in favor of

19

Bedrosian Farms LLC (“Bedrosian”) on all claims. See Doc. No. 91. The hearing on the motion

20

for summary judgment is currently set for September 10, 2018.

21

Also before the Court is Gomez’s motion to continue or deny Bedrosian’s motion for

22

summary judgment made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). See Doc. No. 94. The hearing on

23

Gomez’s motion is currently set for September 21, 2018.

24

Gomez argues that the Court should hear Bedrosian’s motion for summary judgment only

25

after Gomez “has had an opportunity to conduct . . . critical discovery” of facts that are necessary

26

to (1) determine whether a joint employer relationship exists between Bedrosian and Defendant J.

27

Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. (“Jacobo”) and (2) contest or confirm the truthfulness of

28

factual assertions made by Bedrosian in its motion for summary judgment and supporting

1

declarations. Id. at 2:22, 6-9. Gomez notes that her discovery efforts, including her requests for

2

critical documents, have been delayed due to Jacobo’s failure to timely and fully respond. To

3

illustrate this point, Gomez correctly recounts that the magistrate judge previously ordered Jacobo

4

to respond to Gomez’s outstanding discovery requests in response to Gomez’s motion to compel.

5

Id. at 2:9-5:11.

6

The Court finds that Gomez’s motion, which is potentially dispositive of Bedrosian’s

7

motion for summary judgment, has merit. See Martinez v. Columbia Sportswear USA Corp., 553

8

F. App'x 760, 761 (9th Cir. 2014) (identifying the factors a district court considers when ruling on

9

a Rule 56(d) motion). Accordingly, so that the Court can adjudicate Gomez’s motion before

10

Bedrosian’s, the Court will expedite the briefing schedule and vacate the hearing on Gomez’s

11

motion. See Local Rule 102(d). The Court will also vacate the hearing on Bedrosian’s motion for

12

summary judgment. If, upon further consideration, the Court decides that a hearing will be

13

beneficial for either Gomez’s motion or Bedrosian’s motion for summary judgment, then the

14

Court will reset those hearings.

15
16

ORDER

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

The hearing on Bedrosian’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 91) set for

19

September 10, 2018, and the hearing on Gomez’s Rule 56(d) motion (Doc. No. 94)

20

set for September 21, 2018, are vacated;

21

2.

notice of non-opposition to Gomez’s Rule 56(d) motion;

22
23

Bedrosian and Jacobo shall file by September 6, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. an opposition or

3.

Any reply from Gomez shall be filed by September 13, 2018, at 3:00 p.m.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2