Smith v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Filing 12

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/5/2018 CONTINUING the 4 Motion to Remand, 8 Motion to Stay to 6/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley; ORDERING that all opposition and reply briefs be filed based on the new hearing dates and in accordance with Local Rules. (Michel, G.)

1

5

Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752)
Justin P. Rodriguez (Cal. State Bar No. 278275)
Shimoda Law Corp.
9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff JUSTIN SMITH

7

David J. Dow (SBN 179407)
Kelsey E. Papst (SBN 270547)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

2
3
4

8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

JUSTIN SMITH, individually and on behalf )
of all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware )
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE MOTION TO REMAND
AND MOTION TO STAY

Complaint Filed: September 15, 2017

25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & ORDER

2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC

1

1

This Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between Plaintiff JUSTIN SMITH

2

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. (“Defendant”) (Plaintiff and Defendant all

3

collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, as follows:
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Class Action against Defendant in the Superior Court of California

4
5

for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2017-00219188 on September 15, 2017;
WHEREAS Defendant removed Plaintiff’s Action to the United States Superior Court for the

6
7

Eastern District of California and filed a Notice of Removal on October 25, 2017;

8

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that

9

Motion is scheduled for January 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United States

10

District Court for the Eastern District of California;
WHEREAS Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Action on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing

11
12

for that Motion is scheduled for January 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United

13

States District Court for the Eastern District of California;

14

WHEREAS Defendant has not yet filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand;

15

WHEREAS Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action;

16

WHEREAS the Court entered an order on December 18, 2017 extending the hearing date for

17

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Defendant’s Motion to Stay per the Parties’ stipulation until March

18

22, 2018;

19

WHEREAS the Parties agree it is in their best interest to further continue the motion hearings in

20

order to discuss further about settlement between the Parties. Filing motions will be expensive and such

21

efforts can be used to determine whether settlement in feasible;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the

22
23

Parties, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:
1.

24
25

That the Court will continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Hearing currently set for 2:00

p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;
2.

26

That the Court will continue Defendant’s Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00

27

p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;

28

//

STIPULATION & ORDER

2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC

2

1

3.

That all opposition and reply briefs due to be filed in connection with the Motion to

2

Remand and/or Motion to Stay will be now be due based on the newly set hearing dates and in

3

accordance with Local Rules; and

4

4.

That nothing in this stipulation and proposed order, or the act of entering into this

5

stipulation and proposed order, shall prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant in any argument they may

6

otherwise make in the opposition and/or reply briefs.

7
Shimoda Law Corp.

8
9
10

Dated: March 2, 2018

By:

11
12

/s/ Justin P. Rodriguez
Galen T. Shimoda
Justin P. Rodriguez
Attorneys for Plaintiff

13
14
15
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

16
17
Dated: March 2, 2018
18
19
20

By:

/s/ David J. Dow
David J. Dow
(as authorized on 3/2/18)
Kelsey E. Papst
Attorneys for Defendant

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & ORDER

2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC

3

1

ORDER

2

The COURT, having considered the above stipulation and finding good cause, HEREBY

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

ORDERS that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 is

continued to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;
2.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 is

continued to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;
3.

All opposition and reply briefs due to be filed in connection with the Motion to Remand

and/or Motion to Stay will be now be due based on the newly set hearing dates and in accordance with

10

Local Rules; and

11

4.

Nothing in this stipulation order, or the act of entering into this stipulation and order,

12

shall prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant in any argument they may otherwise make in the opposition and/or

13

reply briefs.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 5, 2018

18
19
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION & ORDER

2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC

4