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)
[e-mail]
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)
[e-mail]
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