BNSF Railway Company v. Su

Filing 12

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/23/18 ORDERING that the parties' deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be EXTENDED to not later than 14 days after Defendant files an answer.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Amanda C. Sommerfeld (SBN 185052)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071.2300
Telephone:
+1.213.489.3939
Facsimile:
+1.213.243.2539
Kelsey Israel-Trummel (SBN 282272)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Charles W. Shewmake (SBN 316230)
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
One Arts Plaza
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
+1.214.969.1751
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

18
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
19
Case No. 2:17-cv-02302-MCE-CKD
20

Plaintiff,

21
22

v.

23
24
25

JULIE SU, in her official capacity as
LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT,

JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE
TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER

26
27

Defendant.

28
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Subject to the approval of the Court, Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF” or

2

“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Julie Su (“Su” or “Defendant”) by and through their undersigned

3

attorneys, hereby enter into the following stipulation to extend the deadline to object to the dates

4

contained in the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. The purpose of this stipulation is to

5

promote efficiency and judicial economy by coordinating the deadline to file objections to the

6

Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order with the deadline for Defendant to Answer or otherwise respond

7

to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The reasons to grant this request are as follows:

8
9
10
11

1.

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed an action for Declaratory and Injunctive

Relief in this Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that California’s laws and regulations
pertaining to, among other things, rest periods do not apply to railroad employees. (Doc. No. 1.)
2.

On November 2, 2017, the Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order. The

12

Order states that it will be “final without further order of the Court unless objection are filed

13

within sixty (60) days of service on all defendant(s).” (Doc. No. 3.)

14
15
16

3.

On November 14, 2017, BNSF served Defendant with the summons, Complaint,

and Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, among other documents. (Doc. No. 5.)
4.

On December 6, 2017, Defendant and BNSF submitted a joint stipulation

17

requesting that Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint be extended to and

18

including February 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 8.)

19

5.

On December 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order extending Defendant’s deadline

20

to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to not later than February 5, 2018. (Doc.

21

No. 10.)

22

6.

Pursuant to the Local Civil Rule 144(a), the parties agree that an extension of the

23

deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order is necessary to permit Defendant to

24

answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint in advance of the Rule 26(f) conference. If

25

the dates in the preliminary scheduling order become final, the Rule 26(f) conference must be

26

held by January 16, 2018 more than two weeks before Defendant’s deadline to answer.

27
28

7.

Accordingly, the parties submit that good cause exists to grant their request to

extend the deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order from 60 days of service on
–1–

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2

all defendants to 14 days after Defendant files an answer.
8.

Therefore, the parties hereby jointly stipulate and request that the Court enter an

3

order extending the deadline for the parties to object to the Initial Scheduling Order to 14 days

4

after Defendant files an answer.

5
6

Dated: January 12, 2018

7

/s/ Amanda C. Sommerfeld
Amanda C. Sommerfeld
JONES DAY

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

10
11

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 12, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
Tamar Pachter
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Peter H. Chang
Peter H. Chang
Deputy Attorney General

_______

Attorneys for Defendant
JULIE SU, CALIFORNIA LABOR
COMMISSIONER

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER

1
2

Having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the parties’

3

deadline to object to the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be extended to not later than 14

4

days after Defendant files an answer.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO THE INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER