S & J Rentals v. Hilti, Inc.

Filing 12

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/12/16: Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3) is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to file a Joint Request for Status Conference not later than fourteen (14) days after the date on which the Court's rulings on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer. (Kaminski, H)

1

7

William Kershaw (State Bar No. 057486)
Stuart C. Talley (State Bar No. 180374)
Ian J. Barlow (State Bar No. 262213)
KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

2
3
4
5
6

9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15

S & J RENTALS, INC. d/b/a TWIN
CITIES EQUIPMENT RENTALS, a
California corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,

18

STIPULATION AND JOINT OBJECTION
RE: INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER; ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff,

16
17

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00879-MCE-KJN

v.
HILTI, INC., an Oklahoma corporation,

19

Assigned to Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
Trial Date: None Set

Defendant.

20
21

Pursuant to this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 3) and Eastern District

22

of California Local Rule 143, Plaintiff S & J Rentals, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Hilti, Inc.

23

(“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
STIPULATION

24
25

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its original Complaint on April 27, 2016 (Dkt. No. 1);

26

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Class Action Complaint on May 9, 2016

27
28

(Dkt. No. 4);
WHEREAS, service was completed on Defendant as of May 11, 2016;
-1STIP. & JOINT OBJECTION RE: PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00879-MCE-KJN

WHEREAS, the parties entered into and filed a Stipulation Extending Time for Defendant

1
2

Hilti, Inc. to Respond to Complaint on June 1, 2016 (Dkt. No. 6);
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Jury Demand

3
4

(Dkt. No. 8) and a Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 9) (together, “Motions”) on June 21, 2016;
WHEREAS, briefing on those Motions is not yet complete and the Motions have not yet

5
6

been decided by the Court;
WHEREAS, the Court’s decision on Defendant’s Motions will determine whether this

7
8

case can proceed in this Court and which state’s law applies to this case;

9

WHEREAS, the parties have not yet met and conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

10

Procedure (“Rule”) 26(f) nor have they prepared and submitted a proposed discovery plan

11

pursuant to Rule 26(f)(3);

12

WHEREAS, as part of their meet and confer process, and because this case is pending as a

13

putative class action, the parties will discuss the extent to which Rule 23 requirements may

14

impact the case schedule, including as it relates to the deadline by which Plaintiff will file its

15

motion for class certification;

16

WHEREAS, good cause exists to refrain from entering a case schedule until jurisdictional

17

and choice of law matters have been decided and until the parties have had an opportunity to meet

18

and confer and submit a proposed case schedule that accounts for class certification issues; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without further order

19
20

of the Court unless objections are filed within sixty (60) days of service on all defendants.
NOW, THEREFORE, undersigned counsel for the parties, having met and conferred,

21
22

stipulate and agree as follows:
1.

23

The deadlines set forth in the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order will not
become final at this time;

24
2.

25

The Court will set a status conference pursuant to Rule 16 and Eastern District of
California Local Rule 240 after the pending Motions have been decided; and

26
27

///

28

///
-2STIP. & JOINT OBJECTION RE: PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00879-MCE-KJN

1
2
3

3.

Any Rule 26(f)(3) discovery plan shall be submitted by the parties at least fourteen
(14) days prior to the status conference.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED.

4
5

Dated: July 7, 2016.

KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC

6
7

By: /s/ Stuart C. Talley
Stuart C. Talley

8

William A. Kershaw
Ian J. Barlow
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

13
14

Dated: July 7, 2016.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

15
16
17

By: /s/ John S. Poulos
John S. Poulos

20

Caitlin A. Colman
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
Sacramento, California 95833
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

21

Attorneys for Defendant Hilti, Inc.

18
19

22
23

ORDER

24
25

Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court’s Initial

26

Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3) is hereby vacated. The parties are directed to file a Joint

27

Request for Status Conference not later than fourteen (14) days after the date on which the

28

Court’s rulings on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and Motion to Transfer (ECF No.
-3STIP. & JOINT OBJECTION RE: PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00879-MCE-KJN

1

have been electronically filed. That conference will establish a schedule for adjudicating the case

2

depending on the status of the matter at that time.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: July 12, 2016

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIP. & JOINT OBJECTION RE: PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00879-MCE-KJN