Kevin Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Filing 23

STIPULATION and ORDER 22 re Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/6/2021. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
MICHAEL J. STORTZ (SBN 139386)
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
Email:
[e-mail]
Telephone:
415.765.9500
Facsimile:
415.765.9501
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
SHELLY A. KIM (SBN 322231)
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 990067-6022
Email:
[e-mail]
Telephone:
310.229.1000
Facsimile:
310.229.1001
Attorneys for Defendant
WALMART INC.
KENNETH H. YOON (State Bar No. 198443)
[e-mail]
STEPHANIE E. YASUDA (State Bar No. 265480)
[e-mail]
BRIAN G. LEE (State Bar No. 300990)
[e-mail]
YOON LAW, APC
One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Johnson

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

FRESNO DIVISION

21
22
23

KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff,

24
25
26
27

v.
WALMART INC.,

Case No. 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT
Honorable Dale A. Drozd
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY
PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendant.

28
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Case No. 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT

1
2

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff Kevin Johnson

3

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through their respective attorneys of

4

record, as follows:

5

WHEREAS, Plaintiff commenced the instant action on September 23, 2020;

6

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.

7

19), which included new factual allegations regarding Plaintiff’s alleged purchase of tires and tire

8

services from Defendant, which are at issue in this matter;

9

WHEREAS, on December 28, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to

10

Dismiss or Stay (ECF No. 20), which seeks to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual

11

basis, and if such motion is granted, also moves the Court to dismiss this action or stay the proceedings

12

while arbitration is ongoing;

13
14
15
16
17

WHEREAS, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay has been
noticed for hearing on February 2, 2021;
WHEREAS, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is in the
midst of a judicial emergency that has severely constrained available judicial resources;
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, this Court issued a Standing Order in Light of Ongoing

18

Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California (ECF No. 4-3), recognizing that in light of the

19

judicial emergency, “the shortfall in judicial resources will seriously hinder the administration of

20

justice throughout this district, but the impact will be particularly acute in Fresno” where this matter is

21

pending;

22

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2020, “[i]n light of the current posture” of the case, the Court

23

continued the Initial Scheduling Conference in this matter until February 16, 2021 (ECF No. 18), and

24

no case management deadlines or trial dates have been set;

25

WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that discovery in this matter may be substantial and would

26

require attention from the Court while Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or

27

Stay is pending;

28

2
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the ongoing judicial emergency warrants a stay

2

of discovery and other case proceedings pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Compel

3

Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay;

4

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant,

5

subject to the Court’s approval, that all discovery shall be stayed in this matter pending final resolution

6

of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay. In addition, all case proceedings

7

including the Initial Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for February 16, 2021, shall be

8

continued until no earlier than fifteen (15) calendar days after final resolution of Defendant’s Motion to

9

Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay.

10

SO STIPULATED.

11
12

Dated: January 6, 2021

YOON LAW, APC

13
14

By /s/ Brian G. Lee (as authorized on Jan. 5, 2021)
Brian G. Lee

15
16
17
18

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Johnson
Dated: January 6, 2021

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

19

By /s/ Michael J. Stortz
Michael J. Stortz

20

Attorneys for WALMART INC.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS:

3

1.

4

No discovery may occur until the Court1 conducts the scheduling conference and issues

a scheduling order.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2021

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court does not intend, at this time, to schedule the case until the motion to remand is determined. However,
it declines to vacate the conference, because it is concerned that the matter may be overlooked otherwise. Rather, it will
continue the conference sua sponte, as needed.

4
STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT