Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Vince Chhabria on 2/8/2017 STAYING this action pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris; ORDERING the parties to notify the Court of the Supreme Court's decision in Morris within twenty-one (21) days of said decision. CASE STAYED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JACK S. SHOLKOFF, CA Bar No. 145097
[e-mail]
ALEXANDER M. CHEMERS, CA Bar No. 263726
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone:
213.239.9800
Facsimile:
213.239.9045
Attorneys for Defendants
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA, LLC and
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES WEST COAST, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES ROWLAND on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02135-VGC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
STAYING CASE

13
v.
14
15
16

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
CALIFORNIA, LLC, a limited liability
company; CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
WEST COAST, INC., a corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
District Judge:

September 7, 2016
None
Hon. Vince G. Chhabria
Courtroom 4, 17th Floor
San Francisco

17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28589780_2.docx

Case No. 2:16-cv-02135-VGC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

Plaintiff James Rowland (“Plaintiff”) and defendants CarMax Auto Superstores California,

2

LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. (together, “CarMax”) (collectively, the

3

“Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:

4
5

WHEREAS, on October 11, 2016, CarMax filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration [Dkt No.
6];

6
7

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2017, the Court entered an Order Denying Motion to Compel
Without Prejudice (the “Order”) [Dkt No. 25];

8
9
10

WHEREAS, in the Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice so that
Plaintiff could filed an amended complaint which adequately alleged jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act;

11

WHEREAS, in the Order, the Court also indicated its “tentative view that if an amended

12

complaint were filed, the case would need to be stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in

13

Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris. United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-300. Accordingly, if

14

the plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will entertain a motion to stay the case.”

15

WHEREAS, on February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint;

16

WHEREAS, in an effort to avoid motion practice, the Parties have met and conferred and

17
18

Court’s decision in the Morris case and related appeals. (United States Supreme Court Docket No.

19

16-300).

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

28589780_2.docx

agree with the Court’s tentative view that this matter should be stayed pending the Supreme

///
1
Case No. 2:16-cv-02135-VGC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and CarMax stipulate and request that this matter be stayed in light

2

of the Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in Morris. The Parties further stipulate that, within

3

twenty-one (21) days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Morris, the Parties will notify

4

the Court of the decision by the Supreme Court.

5

DATED: February 7, 2017

6

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.

7
By: /s/ Alexander M. Chemers
Jack S. Sholkoff
Alexander M. Chemers

8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES
CALIFORNIA, LLC and CARMAX AUTO
SUPERSTORES WEST COAST, INC.

10
11
12
13

DATED: February 7, 2017

HUMPHREY & RIST, LLP

14
15
16
17

By: /s/ Christina A. Humphrey
Christina A. Humphrey
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JAMES ROWLAND

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28589780_2.docx

2
Case No. 2:16-cv-02135-VGC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1
2

ORDER
The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation of the Parties and finding good cause, hereby

3

ORDERS that this matter be stayed for all purposes in light of the Supreme Court’s anticipated

4

decision in the Morris case, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-300. The Court

5

FURTHER ORDERS the Parties to inform the Court of the Supreme Court’s decision in Morris

6

within twenty-one (21) days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Morris.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED

8

February 8, 2017
Dated: ________________

9
10
11

____________________________________
Hon. Vince G. Chhabria
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28589780_2.docx

3
Case No. 2:16-cv-02135-VGC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE