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

Filing 57

STIPULATION and ORDER 56 for signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/27/2015. These proceedings are STAYED pending Supreme Court's decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn, Case No. 14-915, cert. granted, 2015 WL 407687 (Mem), 83 USLW 3653 (June 30, 2015). (Marciel, M)

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
STIPULATED REQUEST TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS; PROPOSED ORDER
THEREON
Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

24
25
26
27
28
29 Stipulated Request to Stay Proceedings; Proposed Order Thereon
30

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

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

1

TO THE COURT:

2

The parties to the above-captioned case hereby submit the following stipulated request to stay

3 all further proceedings in the case, specifically summary judgment, all further pretrial proceedings, and
4 trial, pending a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers
5 Ass’n, Case No. 14-915, cert. granted, 2015 WL 407687 (Mem), 83 USLW 3653 (June 30, 2015),
6 which raises inter alia the same issue of the constitutionality of the opt-out procedure for fair share fee
7 objections that is at the heart of the present case. The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of
8 certiorari on June 30, 2015, see id., and its decision is anticipated by the end of the October 2015 term,
9 that is, by June 30, 2016. In support of this stipulated request, the parties provide the following
10 showing of good cause:
11

1.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this case on January 31, 2014. Docket No. 1.

12

2.

Both defendants, Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (“Local 1000”)

13 and the State Controller, answered the Complaint on April 25, 2014. Docket Nos. 17 & 18.
14

3.

The Court issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, Docket No. 21, on July 31, 2014,

15 setting the following pretrial and trial schedule:
16

August 4, 2014

Initial disclosures

17

January 5, 2015

Initial expert reports

18

April 2, 2015

Rebuttal expert reports

19

June 1, 2015

Discovery cut-off

20

November 2, 2015

Motion cut-off

21

February 1, 2016

Final pretrial conference

22

March 29, 2016

Trial

23

4.

Pursuant to that schedule, initial disclosures were exchanged and discovery has closed.

24 (No expert reports were exchanged, so none of the parties will be proffering expert testimony.)
25 Moreover, although not set by the foregoing schedule, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
26 which the Court granted in part and denied in part on May 22, 2015. See Docket No. 53; see also
27 Docket No. 55 (Order Amending Class Definition). All that remains is summary judgment and, if
28 necessary, trial.
Stipulated Request to Stay Proceedings; Proposed Order Thereon

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

1

1

5.

However, summary judgment and/or trial in the present case may be rendered

2 unnecessary, or at the least the scope of any summary judgment and/or trial will likely be substantially
3 narrowed, by the Supreme Court’s eventual decision in Friedrichs. The present case challenges the
4 constitutionality of Defendant SEIU Local 1000’s opt-out system that requires non-members to take
5 affirmative action and submit fee objections in order to prevent the deductions of SEIU Local 1000’s
6 non-chargeable expenses from their wages. That same question is raised in Friedrichs. (Friedrichs
7 also raises another question not raised by the present case: whether the fair share fee system in general
8 is unconstitutional, i.e., whether the First Amendment prohibits any requirement that non-member
9 public employees financially support the union that represents them in collective bargaining, including
10 both chargeable and non-chargeable expenses.)
11

6.

It is likely that, whichever way the Supreme Court rules in Friedrichs, summary

12 judgment and/or trial will not be necessary in this case, or at least the scope of any such summary
13 judgment and/or trial will likely be substantially narrowed. Upon the Supreme Court’s decision in
14 Friedrichs, the parties will meet to discuss how to resolve this case in light of that decision and inform
15 the Court of their suggestion(s). If this Court does not stay the proceedings in the present case, the
16 parties and the Court will be required to expend time and resources that, in all likelihood, will be
17 wasted effort because this Court’s decision ultimately will either be affirmed or reversed based on the
18 Supreme Court’s decision in Friedrichs. On the other hand, nothing will be lost, and no party will be
19 harmed, by awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Friedrichs.
20

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned parties hereby respectfully request this Court to stay

21 all remaining proceedings in this case, specifically summary judgment, all further pretrial proceedings,
22 and trial, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Friedrichs, and to vacate the scheduled dates for the
23 motion cut-off, final pretrial conference, and the trial. When the Supreme Court issues its decision in
24 Friedrichs, the parties will so inform this Court and will meet and confer to present this Court with a
25 joint status statement discussing what they believe is left to be done in this case and how they believe
26 this Court should proceed.
27 ///
28 ///
Stipulated Request to Stay Proceedings; Proposed Order Thereon

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

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated: July 24 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

15

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]

16

By:

10
11
12
13
14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

/s/Kim Nguyen (as authorized on July 24, 2015)
Kim Nguyen

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

/s/W. James Young (as authorized on July 24, 2015)
W. James Young

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class They Represent

28
Stipulated Request to Stay Proceedings; Proposed Order Thereon

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

3

ORDER

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2015

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
Stipulated Request to Stay Proceedings; Proposed Order Thereon

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

4