Mondrian et al v. Trius Trucking, Inc.
Filing
17
ORDER SETTING THE HEARING DATE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/11/2020. (Kusamura, W)
1 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
Norman B. Blumenthal, Bar No. 68687
2 Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Bar No. 205975
Aparajit Bhowmik, Bar No. 248066
3 2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
858-551-1223
Fax No.:
858-551-1232
4 Telephone:
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
6
7 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Matthew E. Farmer, Bar No. 190484
8 Irene V. Fitzgerald, Bar No. 266949
Vanessa M. Cohn, Bar No. 314619
9 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704
559-244-7500
Fax No.:
559-244-7525
10 Telephone:
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 Trius Trucking, Inc., a California Corporation
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17 AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, and RHONDA
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
JONES, individuals, on behalf of themselves,
18 and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
19
20
Plaintiffs,
vs.
21 TRIUS TRUCKING, INC., a California
22
23
24
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
SET MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
HEARING DATE
Complaint Filed: May 10, 2016
1st Amended Complaint Filed: January 05, 2017
2nd Amended Complaint Filed: March 27, 2017
3rd Amended Complaint Filed: May 29, 2019
(Doc. 16)
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
Joint Stipulation And Order to Set Motion for Preliminary Approval Briefing Schedule
Plaintiffs AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN and RHONDA JONES, individuals, on
1
2 behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant
3 TRIUS TRUCKING, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby submit this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed]
4 Order to set the Motion for Preliminary Approval briefing schedule and hearing date.
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Civil
5
6 Action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446, in the United States
7 District Court for the Eastern District of California (Dkt. 1);
WHEREAS, the parties’ first appearance before the Court was initially set for
8
9 October 29, 2019 (Dkt. 4);
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they reached
10
11 a class-wide settlement of this matter and were finalizing the terms of a long-form settlement
12 agreement, after which Plaintiffs intended to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action
13 settlement (Dkt. 7);
WHEREAS, the parties required more time than initially anticipated to finalize the
14
15 terms of the long-form settlement agreement (cf. Dkt. 7);
WHEREAS, the parties circulated a final long-form settlement agreement for
16
17 review and signature, and initially anticipated the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of
18 class settlement within 60 days of January 21, 2020 (cf. Dkt. 10).
WHEREAS, the parties required more time than initially anticipated to review the
19
20 long-form settlement agreement and prepare the Motion for Preliminary Approval, particularly in
21 light of the challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis;
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred further regarding the status of this
22
23 action, next steps concerning review of the Motion for Preliminary Approval; and,
WHEREAS, the parties anticipate that Plaintiffs will file the Motion for
24
25 Preliminary Approval by November, 2020 and respectfully request a hearing date regarding the
26 Motion for Preliminary Approval be set for December, 2020, or a date thereafter as is convenient
27 for the Court.
28 / / /
2
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
Joint Stipulation And Order to Set Motion for Preliminary Approval Briefing Schedule
1
NOW, THEREFORE, and subject to the Court’s approval, the parties stipulate and
2 agree to set the deadline to file the Motion for Preliminary Approval for November 13, 2020 and
3 to set the hearing date regarding the Motion for Preliminary Approval for December 11, 2020, or
4 a date thereafter convenient for the Court.
5 Dated: September 9, 2020
6
7
By: _/s/Victoria B. Rivapalacio_______________
Norman B. Blumenthal
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Aparajit Bhowmik
Victoria B. Rivapalacio
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
8
9
10
11
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE
BLOUW LLP
Dated: September 9, 2020
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
12
13
14
15
By: __/s/Vanessa M. Cohn________________
Matthew E. Farmer
Irene V. Fitzgerald
Vanessa M. Cohn
Attorneys for Defendant
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
Joint Stipulation And Order to Set Motion for Preliminary Approval Briefing Schedule
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, and
4 RHONDA JONES, individuals, on behalf
of themselves, and on behalf of all persons
5 similarly situated,
6
Plaintiffs,
7
vs.
8 TRIUS TRUCKING, INC., a California
9 Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive,
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
ORDER SETTING THE HEARING DATE
REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND
VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Complaint Filed: May 10, 2016
1st Amended Complaint Filed: January 05, 2017
2nd Amended Complaint Filed: March 27, 2017
3rd Amended Complaint Filed: May 29, 2019
10
Defendants.
11
12
13
Based on the above stipulation of the parties (Doc. 16), by and through their counsel of
14
15
16
17
record, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Motion
for Preliminary Approval of class action settlement SHALL be filed no later than November
13, 2020, and SHALL be heard no later than December 16, 2020.
It is further ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for September 17, 2020, is
18
19
hereby VACATED in light of the settlement.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated:
September 11, 2020
/s/
Sheila K. Oberto
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 1:19-CV-00884-DAD-SKO
Joint Stipulation And Order to Set Motion for Preliminary Approval Briefing Schedule
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?