Mario Cortez et al v. Vieira Custom Chopping, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION IN PART. (Doc. 8-2) The Scheduling Conference currently set for 3/8/2018, is CONTINUED to 6/28/2018, at 10:15 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The parties shall file their joint scheduling report by no later than 6/21/2018. Pursuant to the Court's prior order (Doc. 9), the parties may appear telephonically for the Scheduling Conference on 6/28/2018, by coordinating one conference call to the Court at [phone] at the appointed time. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/5/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12

MARIO CORTEZ, MARIA CISNEROS,
ANTONIO TOSCANO, FRANCISCO
JAVIER GONZALEZ, JESES
RODRIGUEZ, CECILIA GARCIA, JOSE
LUIS RAYGOZA, and JOSE GUZMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.
15
16
17
18

VIEIRA CUSTOM CHOPPING, INC., a
California Corporation; V & S
COMMODITY, INC., a California
Corporation; CHRISTINA VIEIRA; and
MATTHEW SEPEDA,

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-01647-DAD-SKO
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION IN
PART
(Doc. 8-2)

Defendants.

20
21
22

On March 1, 2018, the parties to this action, Plaintiffs MARIO CORTEZ, MARIA
CISNEROS,

ANTONIO

TOSCANO,

FRANCISCO

JAVIER

GONZALEZ,

JESUS

23

RODRIGUEZ, CECILIA GARCIA, JOSE LUIS RAYGOZA, and JOSE GUZMAN
24

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Vieira Custom Chopping, Inc., V & S Commodity, Inc., Christina

25

Vieira, and Matthew Sepeda (“Defendants”), filed a Stipulation Concerning Discovery, Stay of
26
27
28

Action and Mediation (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation indicates that the parties have
scheduled a private mediation for May 30, 2018, and, to facilitate the mediation and to reduce

1

associated legal expenses, requests an order requiring (1) an agreed-upon method of

2

Defendants producing documents and information to Plaintiffs’ counsel; (2) a stay of all other

3

litigation in this case, including but not limited to discovery, and (3) a continuance of the

4

Scheduling Conference from March 8, 2018, to July 20, 2018. (Doc. 8-2.)

5
6

Based on the Stipulation, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED as
follows:

7

1. The Scheduling Conference currently set for March 8, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., is

8

CONTINUED to June 28, 2018, at 10:15 a.m.1

9

2. Pursuant to the Court’s prior order (Doc. 9), the parties may appear telephonically

10

for the Scheduling Conference on June 28, 2018, by coordinating one conference
11

call to the Court at [phone] at the appointed time.
12

3. The parties shall file an updated Joint Scheduling Report by no later than June 21,

13

2018.

14

4. If after the scheduled mediation the parties reach a settlement agreement or wish to

15
16

continue settlement discussions and to continue the Scheduling Conference, the

17

parties shall file either a notice of settlement or a status report updating the Court as

18

to the status of the parties’ settlement discussion by no later than June 14, 2018.
5.

19

Subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and this Order, Defendants

20

agree to provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel, on or before April 13, 2018, complete,

21

legible, bates stamped copies of the following documents (with employee names

22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The Court finds that the factors to be considered on a motion for a stay have not been met at this time. See
V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi Overseas LLC, 2016 WL 1268008, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31,
2016) (“In considering a Motion to Stay, this Court considers the following factors: (1) whether discovery is
complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of
the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
party.”); see also Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (stating that
a district court can, at its discretion, stay an action pending the conclusion of an alternative proceeding; “[a] trial
court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay
of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case”; and “[t]his rule
applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require
that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court”).

1

redacted, but including the last four digits of the employee’s social security number

2

on all of the records, including time cards, through pay period ending on March 18,

3

2018) and data, in electronic form wherever possible, and/or in hard copy when

4

requested, the following documents for each Putative Class Member, as defined in

5

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

6

a.
b.

8

All records of hours worked by each Putative Class Member; and

c.

7

All payroll records for each Putative Class Member;

All employee handbooks and policies, of any kind or description,

9

and all draft versions thereof, in existence at any time within the
10

past five (5) years.
11

6. Nothing in this Order is intended to create, expand, limit or waive any of the parties’
12

rights, defenses or remedies at law or equity. The parties reserve all rights available

13

to them under the law, including all statutes and constitutions.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated:

March 5, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

.