McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B.

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 7/7/15 ORDERING that the Final Pretrial Order filed on 5/15/15 is VACATED, and the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed on 11/19/13 is amended as follows: the parties' supplemental briefing schedule on the referenced cross motions for summary judgment is adopted as follows: supplemental briefs shall be filed no later than 7/24/15, and any reply briefs shall be filed no later than 7/31/15; the hearing on the motions is scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on 8/11/15; a final pretrial conference is scheduled in courtroom 10 at 11:00 a.m. on 10/19/15, the parties shall file a further JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference; and trial commences at 9:00 a.m. on 12/1/15, in courtroom 10. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

GINA McKEEN-CHAPLIN, MONICA
ALVAREZ, SUSAN CLAYTON, KAREN
HONOUR, ANNA NEAL, JAMES
PERRY, CARMEN PHAN, RANDALL
STEWART, and KRISTI SUAREZ,

10

2:12-cv-03035-GEB-AC

ORDER VACATING FINAL PRETRIAL
ORDER AND AMENDING STATUS ORDER

Plaintiffs,

11
12

No.

v.
PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

13

Defendant.

14
15

On June 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion,

16

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 1, in which they

17

request the Court “permit[] supplemental briefing on the Parties’

18

cross motions for summary judgment[,]” and “reconsider its order

19

on

20

benefit of the Parties’ supplemental briefing and in light of the

21

fact that the trial of this matter will be a nonjury trial.1”

22

(Joint

23

“Specifically, the Parties propose to submit supplemental briefs

24

of seven pages or fewer (plus any supplemental exhibits) on or by

25

July 24, 2015, and four page reply briefs on or by July 31,

26

2015.” (Id. at 4:4-6.) The parties further request “that the

the

Parties’

Mot.

cross

2:4-8,

motions

ECF

for

No.

summary

94

judgment

(citations

with

the

omitted).)

27
1

28

On June 26, 2015, the parties filed under Rule 39(a)(1) a Joint
Stipulation for Non-Jury Trial. (ECF No. 93.)

1

1

Court continue the August 11 trial date for 60 days to allow the

2

Court to hear and rule on summary judgment.” (Id. at 4:8-9.) The

3

parties argue in support of their motion as follows:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Because the parties have waived a jury
trial by stipulation, this case is now set to
be tried to the Court. In the interest of a
“just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of
this Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Parties
respectfully
request
that
the
court
reconsider the Parties’ motions for summary
judgment with the benefit of additional
briefing. The . . . Parties agree that there
are significant material facts over which
there are no disputes; the Court’s order
denying the Parties’ cross motions for
summary
judgment
identifies
a
host
of
undisputed
material
facts.
The
Parties
respectfully submit that there are one or
more legal issues which can and should be
resolved based on the undisputed material
facts in the record, and that a ruling on
these
issues
prior
to
trial
will
significantly
limit
scope
of
witness
testimony and documentary evidence needed for
the trial of this action, if not eliminate
the need for a trial altogether.
For example, the Court’s analysis of the
second prong of the administrative exemption
(work
directly
related
to
Provident’s
management or general business operations)
does not identify any disputed material
facts. And yet the Court made no ruling as to
whether the undisputed facts were sufficient
for Provident to carry its burden on this
prong of the exemption. Without additional
guidance from the Court, the Parties will
inevitably
present
these
and
similar
undisputed facts to the Court, in a bench
trial, through a series of witnesses and
documents, and then ask the Court to reach a
legal conclusion the parties believe can and
should be made now.
The Court also denied Provident’s motion
on the third prong of the exemption (exercise
of discretion and independent judgment). As
with the second prong, a clear ruling as to
the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
undisputed material facts, and a demarcation
of the disputed facts left for trial, could
significantly narrow the factual issues to be
2

1

presented regarding the third prong, if not
eliminate the need for a trial altogether.
The
Parties
respectfully
submit
that
resolving these issues on summary judgment,
rather than through live witnesses in a bench
trial, will promote judicial economy.

2
3
4
5

(Id. at 3:4-28 (citations omitted).)
In

6

light

of

the

parties’

Joint

Motion

and

Joint

7

Stipulation for Non-Jury Trial, the Final Pretrial Order filed on

8

May 15, 2015, is vacated, and the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

9

Order filed on November 19, 2013, is amended as follows:
The

10

parties’

cross

supplemental

motions

for

briefing

summary

schedule

judgment

is

on

adopted

the

11

referenced

as

12

follows: supplemental briefs of seven pages or fewer (plus any

13

supplemental exhibits) shall be filed no later than July 24,

14

2015, and any reply briefs of four pages or fewer shall be filed

15

no later than July 31, 20152; the hearing on the motions is

16

scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on August 11, 2015; a final

17

pretrial conference is scheduled in courtroom 10 at 11:00 a.m. on

18

October 19, 2015; the parties shall file a further JOINT pretrial

19

statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the

20

final pretrial conference; and trial commences at 9:00 a.m. on

21

December 1, 2015, in courtroom 10.

22

Dated:

July 7, 2015

23
24
25
26
27
2

28

The deadline prescribed in the Status Order to complete all other
law and motion remains unchanged.

3