U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alorica, Inc.

Filing 5

ORDER MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND TO CONTINUE THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for 1/25/2018 is CONTINUED to 3/29/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/15/2017. (Bernacchi, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Anna Y. Park, SBN 164242 Sue J. Noh, SBN 192134 Rumduol Vuong, SBN 264392 Lorena Garcia-Bautista, SBN 234091 Nakkisa Akhavan, SBN 286260 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) ALORICA, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No. 1:17-cv-01270-LJO-MJS UNOPPOSED EX PARTE MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS AND TO CONTINUE THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; DECLARATION OF SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY RUMDUOL VUONG; AND PROPOSED ORDER 23 24 25 Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) submits the following unopposed ex parte motion to stay the case pending settlement discussions with 26 Defendant Alorica, Inc. (“Defendant”) and to continue the mandatory scheduling conference, 27 which is currently set for January 25, 2018, to late March 2018. 28 -1- 1 On September 22, 2017, the EEOC filed the instant action against Defendant. (See 2 Docket No. 1.) On September 22, 2017, the Court issued an order setting the mandatory 3 scheduling conference for January 25, 2018. (Docket No. 3). Pursuant to that Order, the joint 4 scheduling report is due on January 18, 2018, and the parties must meet and confer pursuant to 5 Rule 26(f) by January 5, 2018. Id. 6 Prior to the EEOC incurring costs to serve Defendant and Defendant having to file a 7 responsive pleading, the parties have agreed to engage in settlement discussions. As a result, the 8 parties have scheduled a mediation for January 18, 2018. 9 Good cause exists to stay the case and continue the mandatory scheduling conference to 10 late March 2018. Staying the case would minimize costs and conserve judicial resources as the 11 12 13 parties could divert resource from responsive pleading/motion practice to concentrate on settlement discussions. Thus, the EEOC respectfully requests an ex parte motion to stay the case and continue the 14 mandatory scheduling conference, and the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference and the joint 15 16 17 18 19 scheduling report. Furthermore, the requested continuance will not result in any undue delay or prejudice to either party as the stay would permit the parties to participate in settlement discussions and only push deadlines by two months. Accordingly, the EEOC requests that this Court stay the case and continue the mandatory 20 scheduling conference, which is currently set for January 25, 2018, at least sixty (60) days 21 following the January 25, 2018 date. 22 23 Respectfully submitted, 24 Date: October 12, 2017 25 26 /s/ Lorena Garcia Bautista Lorena Garcia-Bautista Trial Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 27 28 -2- ORDER 1 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the scheduling conference in this case number 2 1:17-cv-01270-LJO-MJS is continued from January 25, 2018, to March 29, 2018 3 at10:00 a.m. All other provisions of ECF No. 3 remain in full force and effect. 4 Additionally, except as the parties may agree amongst themselves, discovery and all 5 pleading and dispositive motions shall be held in abeyance pending the scheduling 6 conference. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 11 Dated: October 15, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?