U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Marquez Brothers International, Inc. et al

Filing 9

Joint Stipulation re: Deadlines for Response and Reply to Defendants' Anticipated Motions Responding to the First Amended Complaint; and Joint Stipulation to Vacate Mandatory Scheduling Conference and Related Dates; ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/30/17. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 10/2/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Anna Y. Park, SBN 164242
Sue J. Noh, SBN 192134
Rumduol Vuong, SBN 264392
Derek W. Li, SBN 150122
Jennifer L. Boulton, SBN 259076
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

10

Attorneys for Plaintiff
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

11

(Additional Attorneys on next page)

9

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARQUEZ BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL, )
INC., MARQUEZ BROTHERS
)
)
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
MARQUEZ BROTHERS FOODS, INC.,
)
MARQUEZ BROTHERS SOUTHERN
)
CALIFORNIA, INC., MARQUEZ
)
BROTHERS NEVADA, INC., MARQUEZ
)
BROTHERS TEXAS I, INC., AND DOES 1- )
)
10, INCLUSIVE
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

27
28

-1-

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00044-AWI-EPG
JOINT STIPULATION RE: DEADLINES
FOR RESPONSE AND REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED
MOTION(S) RESPONDING TO THE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND
JOINT STIPULATION TO VACATE
MANDATORY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES;
ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LITTER MENDELSON, P.C.
Keith Jacoby, SBN 150233
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
2029 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Marquez Brothers International, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Southern Cal., Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and
Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc.

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

-2-

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Defendants

1
2

Marquez Brothers International, Inc., Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc., Marquez Brothers

3

Foods, Inc., Marquez Brothers Southern California, Inc., Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and

4

Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc. (“Defendants”) by and through their counsel of record stipulate

5

as follows:

6

1.

On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff EEOC filed its Complaint alleging that the named

7

Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by engaging in

8

unlawful employment hiring practices based on race and by failing or refusing to make,

9

preserve, and produce the required records and reports. (Complaint, ECF No. 1). Before any of

10

the Defendants filed a response to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed on February 28, 2017 its First

11

Amended Complaint. (First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5).

12

2.

The undersigned defense counsel represents all the Defendants named in this

13

action.

14

Stipulation re: Deadlines to File any Opposition and Reply to Defendants’ Motion or

15

Motions Responding to the First Amended Complaint

16

3.

Pursuant to Local Rule 144 which provides for stipulation to extend time to

17

respond to the complaint without court approval, the Parties filed their stipulation that all

18

Defendants will have until April 19, 2017 or a 28-day extension from the date that the first

19

Defendant was served on March 2, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff EEOC’s First Amended

20

Complaint.

21
22
23

4.

Defendants anticipate filing a motion or motions in response to the First

Amended Complaint by April 19, 2017 on several grounds.
5.

According to Local Rule 230(c), any opposition to a motion shall be filed and

24

served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding to the noticed hearing date. Pursuant to Local

25

Rule 230(d), the moving party may serve and file a reply to any opposition filed by a

26

responding party not less than seven (7) days preceding the date of the hearing.

27
28

6.

Because of the number of Defendants and issues involved in the anticipated

motion or motions responding to the First Amended Complaint to be filed by April 19, 2017,

-3-

1

the Parties stipulate that Plaintiff EEOC will have until May 19, 2017 to file any opposition to

2

Defendants’ motion or motions responding to the First Amended Complaint. The Parties further

3

stipulate that Defendants will have until June 19, 2017 to file any reply to any opposition filed

4

by Plaintiff EEOC. The Parties stipulate that the hearing date on the motion or motions will be

5

scheduled 14 days after the reply is due or on a date and time convenient to the Court.

6

Stipulation to Vacate the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and Related Dates

7

7.

On January 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

8

Conference for April 11, 2017. (Order 1, ECF No. 4). The Court also ordered that a Joint

9

Scheduling Report shall be electronically filed one full week prior to the Scheduling

10

Conference. (Id. at 3). The Court further ordered that a conference of counsel shall be held at

11

least twenty days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling Conference. (Id.).

12

8.

Because of the Parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline to April 19, 2017 with

13

respect to Defendants’ response to Plaintiff EEOC’s First Amended Complaint and the

14

stipulation regarding the deadline of May 19, 2017 for Plaintiff EEOC to file any opposition to

15

Defendant’s motion or motions responding to the First Amended Complaint and the deadline of

16

June 19, 2017 for Defendants to file any reply to Plaintiff EEOC’s opposition, the Parties will

17

not be able to meet the current deadlines relating to the April 11, 2017 Mandatory Scheduling

18

Conference as set by the Court on January 11, 2017. Furthermore, any meaningful meeting of

19

counsel, joint scheduling report, and Mandatory Scheduling Conference depend on how the

20

Court rules on Defendants’ motion or motions.

21

9.

Thus, the Parties stipulate that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is to be

22

continued to October 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. with telephonic appearances granted.

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28

-4-

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2
3

Dated: March 29, 2017

Respectfully Submitted
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

4
5

/s/ Derek W. Li

6

By:
Derek W. Li
EEOC Trial Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC

7
8
9

Dated: March 29, 2017

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

/s/ Keith Jacoby (authorized to sign by counsel)
BY: _____________________________
Keith Jacoby
Attorney for Defendants
Marquez Brothers International, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Enterprises, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Foods, Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Southern Cal., Inc.,
Marquez Brothers Nevada, Inc., and
Marquez Brothers Texas I, Inc.

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

-5-

ORDER

1

Based on the above stipulation, the Court orders that:

2

1.

3

Defendants’ motion or motions responding to the First Amended Complaint.

4

Defendants shall have until June 19, 2017 to file any reply to any opposition

5

filed by Plaintiff EEOC. Defendants shall notice the hearing on the motion or

6

motions at least 21 days after the deadline to file a reply brief.1

7
2.

8

The Initial Scheduling Conference, which is currently set for April 11, 2017 at
9:00 a.m., is continued to October 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Telephonic appearances

9

are granted to any party wishing to so appear. To participate telephonically, each

10

party is to use the following dial-in numbers: Dial-in number 1-888-251-2909;

11

Passcode 1024453.

12
13

Plaintiff EEOC shall have until May 19, 2017 to file any opposition to

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:

15

March 30, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Unless the parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), any dispositive motion will be
heard in Courtroom 2 before Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Defendants are advised to contact Judge Ishii’s
chambers before filing their motion to obtain available hearing dates.

-6-