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)
[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 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