Hamidi et al v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000 et al

Filing 47

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/21/15 re: 46 ORDERING that the supplemental opposition be filed no later than 5/4/15. (Meuleman, A)

1 JEFFREY B. DEMAIN (SBN 126715)
EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)
2 P. CASEY PITTS (SBN 262463)
Altshuler Berzon LLP
3 177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94108
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
6 [e-mail]
7 YORK J. CHANG (SBN 220415)
ANNE M. GIESE (SBN 143934)
8 SEIU Local 1000
1808 14th Street
9 Sacramento, California 95811
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
11 [e-mail]
12 Attorneys for Defendant
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

)
KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, et al., AND )
18 THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT )
)
19
Plaintiffs,
)
)
20
v.
)
)
21 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL )
UNION, LOCAL 1000, et al.;
)
22
)
Defendants.
)
23
)

No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN
STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’
ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT SEIU LOCAL
1000’S INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS; ORDER THEREON
Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

N/A
N/A
N/A
Hon. William B. Shubb

24
25
26
27
28
29 Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order
30

Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

1

TO THE COURT:

2

The parties to the above-captioned case hereby submit the following stipulations regarding

3 Plaintiffs’ Answers to Defendant SEIU Local 1000’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of
4 Requests for Production of Documents.
5

1.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Answer to SEIU Local 1000’s Interrogatory No. 15 and Answers

6 to SEIU Local 1000’s Interrogatories Nos. 16-33, all of which Interrogatories consist of questions
7 regarding Plaintiffs’ legal contentions in the above-captioned action, were verified by Plaintiffs’
8 counsel W. James Young on Plaintiffs’ behalf, rather than personally by each of the Plaintiffs. In order
9 to avoid unnecessary time and effort on the part of Plaintiffs and their counsel, the undersigned parties
10 hereby stipulate that Mr. Young’s verification on behalf of Plaintiffs shall have the same effect as if
11 those Answers had been verified personally by each of the Plaintiffs, and that those Answers shall be
12 binding on each of the Plaintiffs to the same extent as if he or she had personally verified them under
13 penalty of perjury.
14

2.

Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their objections to Interrogatories Nos. 26-33 based on

15 exceeding the number of permissible number of interrogatories, in light of the parties’ stipulation in the
16 Revised Joint Status Report regarding the number of interrogatories permitted to each side. See
17 Docket No. 20 at 4:9-12.
18

3.

Plaintiffs affirm and stipulate that they are not withholding any information subject to

19 any of the objections they have raised to Local 1000’s Interrogatories or Requests for Production of
20 Documents.
21

4.

Plaintiffs stipulate that they are pursuing two claims in this action: (1) that the “opt-

22 out” system under California law and Local 1000’s June 2013 Hudson notice, which requires
23 nonmembers to notify Local 1000 of their objection to paying for non-chargeable expenses or else be
24 charged the full fair share fee, and to renew annually their objection, is unconstitutional under the First
25 Amendment; and (2) that Local 1000 unconstitutionally collected non-chargeable expenses from non26 members who had objected to paying for non-chargeable expenses in response to the Union’s June
27 2013 Hudson notice by charging them for a proportional share of the Union’s defense costs in Knox v.
28 Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, Case No. 2:05-cv–02198 MCE KJM, and reported at 132
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order

29 Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN
30

1

1 S. Ct. 2277 (2012), in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs further stipulate that they are not
2 pursuing any other claims that the content of Local 1000’s June 2013 Hudson notice was
3 constitutionally deficient under Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986),
4 i.e., a so-called “Hudson notice claim.”
5

5.

Because Local 1000 provided Plaintiffs with several extensions of time to respond to

6 its Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, it did not receive those
7 Answers until after it filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition”),
8 Docket No. 39, and therefore was not aware when it drafted and filed its Opposition that Plaintiffs
9 were not pursuing a Hudson notice claim. For that reason, it discussed a Hudson notice claim at
10 several points in that Opposition as though Plaintiffs were pursuing such a claim. So that the Court
11 may be fully and accurately informed as to Local 1000’s arguments regarding the claims that Plaintiffs
12 are actually seeking to litigate and as to which they request class certification, the parties hereby
13 stipulate that Local 1000 may file a Supplemental Opposition of no more than three pages clarifying
14 and correcting the references to a Hudson notice claim in their Opposition.
15

The foregoing is so stipulated and agreed between the parties to the above-captioned action, by

16 among their undersigned counsel.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dated: April 16, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY B. DEMAIN
EVE H. CERVANTEZ
P. CASEY PITTS
Altshuler Berzon LLP
YORK J. CHANG
ANNE M. GIESE
SEIU Local 1000
By:

/s/ Jeffrey B. Demain
Jeffrey B. Demain

Attorneys for Defendant Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000

26
27
28
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order

29 Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN
30

2

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARK R. BECKINGTON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
KIM L. NGUYEN
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 209524
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

By:

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant John Chiang,
Controller of the State of California

10

W. JAMES YOUNG, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, Virginia 22160
[phone]

11
12
13

STEVEN R. BURLINGHAM, Esq.
California Bar No. 88544
Gary, Till & Burlingham
5330 Madison Avenue, Suite F
Sacramento, California 95841
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
15
16
17
18

By:

19

21

23

/s/W. James Young (as authorized on April 16, 2015)
W. James Young

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class They Seek to Represent

20

22

/s/Kim Nguyen (as authorized on April 16, 2015)
Kim Nguyen

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. The supplemental opposition referenced above shall be filed no
later than MAY 4, 2015.

24
25 Dated: April 21, 2015
26
27
28
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order

29 Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN
30

3