National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al v. State of California et al
Filing
23
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/28/15 ORDERING that This case shall be STAYED and all associated dates and deadlines VACATED. The stay shall remain in effect for a period of 90 days. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 90-day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Catherine S. Nasser (State Bar No. 246191)
cnasser@JonesDay.com
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Donald J. Munro (State Bar No. 453600) (admitted pro
hac vice)
dmunro@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone:
+1.202.879.3922
Facsimile:
+1.202.626.1700
9
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND
LOS ANGELES JUNCTION RAILWAY
12
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
17
18
19
20
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION (D/B/A AMTRAK),
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and
LOS ANGELES JUNCTION RAILWAY
21
22
23
24
25
Case No. 2:15-cv-00924-WBS-EFB
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS FOR NINETY DAYS
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, and
JULIE SU, in her official capacity as Labor
Commissioner, State of California Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement,
26
Defendants.
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR NINETY DAYS
1
Plaintiffs National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a Amtrak), BNSF Railway
2
Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Los Angeles Junction Railway (collectively,
3
“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants the State of California, the State of California Division of Labor
4
Standards Enforcement, and Julie Su, in her official capacity as Labor Commissioner
5
(collectively, “Defendants”), hereby request and jointly stipulate to stay of all proceedings in this
6
case for a period of ninety (90) days.
7
8
9
10
Recitals
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”) are actively engaged in
settlement negotiations and would like the opportunity to continue those discussions before
advancing litigation further and potentially wasting judicial resources;
11
WHEREAS “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
12
court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort
13
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he
14
law favors and encourages compromise settlements,” Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d
15
47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and courts routinely order stays to facilitate settlement efforts. See, e.g.,
16
13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2 (2009) (“[A] court may stay
17
proceedings if the parties are working toward settlement . . . .”);
18
WHEREAS the Parties agree that a stay is desirable both to facilitate their settlement
19
efforts and to conserve judicial resources. See White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 06-cv-00665,
20
2006 WL 1409556, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (“[B]ecause the parties appear to be in
21
agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable, the court sees no reason not to exercise
22
its inherent power to issue one.”);
23
NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly stipulate that it is in
24
the interests of all concerned and will promote judicial economy to stay this case in its entirety as
25
set forth below, or on such other terms as the Court may order:
26
27
1. This case shall be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. The stay shall
remain in effect for a period of 90 days.
28
-2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR NINETY DAYS
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to
explore settlement.
3. Should the case be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing
appropriate dispositional documents.
4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 90day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.
7
8
Dated: July 23, 2015
9
JONES DAY
By: /s/ Catherine S. Nasser
Catherine S. Nasser
Donald J. Munro
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION,
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, AND LOS ANGELES
JUNCTION RAILWAY
12
13
14
15
Dated: July 23, 2015
16
17
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TAMAR PACHTER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
18
19
20
21
22
23
By: /s/ Rei R. Onishi (as authorized July 22, 2015)
Rei R. Onishi
Attorneys for Defendants
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT,
and JULIE SU, in her official capacity as Labor
Commissioner
24
25
26
27
28
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR NINETY DAYS
1
ORDER
2
Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Parties:
3
1. This case shall be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. The stay shall
4
5
6
7
8
9
remain in effect for a period of 90 days.
2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to
explore settlement.
3. Should the case be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing
appropriate dispositional documents.
4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 90-
10
day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: JULY 28, 2015
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR NINETY DAYS
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?