National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al v. State of California et al
Filing
25
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/21/15 ORDERING that the stay of all proceedings shall be EXTENDED for a period of 90 days beyond the current expiration date of 10/28/15, to 1/26/2016. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall continue to meet and confer in good faith to explore settlement. (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 EXTEND
THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR
ADDITIONAL 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 EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL 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 an extension of the current
6
stay of all proceedings in this case for an additional period of ninety (90) days.
7
8
9
Recitals
WHEREAS the Court had previously stayed proceedings to allow Plaintiffs and
Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”) to engage in settlement discussions [Dkt. No. 23]; and
10
WHEREAS the Parties have made progress in their negotiations but have not yet
11
completed those negotiations, and would like the opportunity to continue their discussions before
12
advancing litigation further and potentially wasting judicial resources; and
13
WHEREAS “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
14
court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort
15
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he
16
law favors and encourages compromise settlements,” Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d
17
47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and courts routinely order stays to facilitate settlement efforts. See, e.g.,
18
13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2 (2009) (“[A] court may stay
19
proceedings if the parties are working toward settlement . . . .”); and
20
WHEREAS the Parties agree that a stay is desirable both to facilitate their ongoing
21
settlement efforts and to conserve judicial resources. See White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No.
22
06-cv-00665, 2006 WL 1409556, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (“[B]ecause the parties appear
23
to be in agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable, the court sees no reason not to
24
exercise its inherent power to issue one.”);
25
NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly stipulate that it is in
26
the interests of all concerned and will promote judicial economy to extend the stay this case in its
27
entirety as set forth below, or on such other terms as the Court may order:
28
-2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. The stay of all proceedings shall be extended for a period of 90 days beyond the
current expiration date of October 28, 2015.
2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall continue to 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.
9
10
Dated: October 20, 2015
11
JONES DAY
By: /s/ Catherine S. Nasser
Catherine S. Nasser
Donald J. Munro
12
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION,
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, AND LOS ANGELES
JUNCTION RAILWAY
14
15
16
17
18
19
Dated: October 20, 2015
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TAMAR PACHTER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
20
21
22
23
24
25
By: /s/ Peter Chang (as authorized October 20, 2015)
Peter Chang
Attorneys for Defendants
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT,
and JULIE SU, in her official capacity as Labor
Commissioner
26
27
28
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS
1
ORDER
2
Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Parties:
3
1. The stay of all proceedings shall be extended for a period of 90 days beyond the
4
5
6
7
8
9
current expiration date of October 28, 2015, to January 26, 2016.
2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall continue to 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: OCTOBER 21, 2015
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
FOR ADDITIONAL 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?