Smith v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Filing
18
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/16/18 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 4 hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on 7/26/18, is CONTINUED to 11/15/2018 at 02:00 PM; Defendant's Motion to Stay 8 hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on 7/26/18, is CONTINUED to 2:00 p.m. on 11/15/18. 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 d ates and in accordance with Local Rules; and Nothing in this stipulation order, or the act of entering into this stipulation and order, shall prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant in any argument they may otherwise make in the opposition and/or reply briefs.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
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: (916) 525-0716
Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com
jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com
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: (916)830-7200
Email: ddow@littler.com
kpapst@littler.com
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;
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that
8
9
Motion is scheduled for July 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United States
10
District Court for the Eastern District of California per the Court’s order entered on June 11, 2018
11
extending the hearing date;
WHEREAS Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Action on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing
12
13
for that Motion is scheduled for July 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United
14
States District Court for the Eastern District of California per the Court’s order entered on June 11, 2018
15
extending the hearing date;
16
WHEREAS Defendant has not yet filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand;
17
WHEREAS Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action;
18
WHEREAS the Parties are engaged in continued settlement discussions and the Parties agree it is
19
in their best interest to further continue the motion hearings in order to facilitate settlement;
WHEREAS a ruling on the pending motions prior to a final determination between the Parties on
20
21
whether settlement can be achieved will negatively affect the prospect of resolution.
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 July 26, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 2018;
2.
26
That the Court will continue Defendant’s Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00
27
p.m. on July 26, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 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: July 11, 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: July 11, 2018
18
19
20
By:
/s/ David J. Dow
David J. Dow
(as authorized on 7/10/18)
Kelsey E. Papst
Attorneys for Defendant
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & ORDER
2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC
3
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The COURT, having considered the above stipulation and finding good cause, HEREBY
ORDERS that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on July 26, 2018, is
continued to 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 2018;
2.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on July 26, 2018, is
continued to 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 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: July 16, 2018
18
19
20
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & ORDER
2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC
4
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?