McClure v. Brand Energy Service, LLC et al

Filing 27

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/20/2019 VACATING all dates, STAYING this matter, and setting Status Conference for 8/15/2019 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, with the filing of a joint status report due seven days prior. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MICHAEL A. STRAUSS, CA Bar No. 246718
[e-mail]
Aris E. Karakalos, CA Bar No. 240802
[e-mail]
Andrew C. Ellison, CA Bar No. 283884
[e-mail]
STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
121 North Fir Street, Suite F
Ventura, CA 93001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 805.641.6607
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARLIN MCCLURE and the Putative Class
DOUGLAS J. FARMER, CA Bar No. 139646
[e-mail]
JASON P. BROWN, CA Bar No. 266472
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
415.442.4810
Facsimile:
415.442.4870
Attorneys for Defendant
WAVELAND SERVICES, INC.

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20 MARLIN MCCLURE, an individual, for
himself and those similarly situated,
21
Plaintiffs,
22
v.
23
WAVELAND SERVICES INC., a Louisiana
24 corporation doing business in California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
25
Defendants.
26

Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION STAY
CASE PENDING UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Complaint Filed: June 14, 2018
First Amended Complaint Filed: Sept. 21, 2018
Trial Date:
None Set
Judge:
Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

27
28
Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY

1

Plaintiff MARLIN McCLURE and defendant WAVELAND SERVICES, INC.

2

(hereinafter the “parties”) jointly seek via this administrative motion an order of the Court

3

vacating all current court deadlines and staying this matter for all purposes for a limited period of

4

time pending the outcome of the United States Supreme Court decision in Newton v. Parker

5

Drilling Management No. 18-389 (Certiorari granted January 11, 2019).

6

1.

On September 13, 2018 the Court held its Status (Pretrial Schedule) Conference

7

before Judge Kimberly Mueller. At the conference the parties discussed the pending petition for

8

certiorari in the Newton v. Parker Drilling matter, and that disposition of the Newton matter would

9

substantially affect the outcome of the present case, and that a stay may be required should

10

certiorari be granted. The Court invited the parties to return with the court with pleadings

11

regarding a stay, should that occur.

12

2.

13

11, 2018 [024]

The following dates were set after the conference via scheduling order on October

14

a.

Close of Fact Discovery: May 1, 2019

15

b.

Designation of Expert Witnesses: July 1, 2019

16

c.

Close of Expert Discovery: September 12, 2019

17

d.

Last Court day for hearing on Summary Judgment: November 2, 2019

18

3.

The Parties have been in active negotiations on settlement from the date of the

19

initial status conference through the present date, including a formal mediation with mediator

20

Steve Pearl, and a formal in-person settlement conference with all parties in attendance.

21

4.

On January 11, 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in

22

the matter of Newton v. Parker Drilling Management No. 18-389 (Certiorari granted January

23

11, 2019).

24

5.

Plaintiff’s claims in this case rely in significant part on the Ninth Circuit’s holding

25

in Newton, which the Supreme Court has elected to review. How the Supreme Court ultimately

26

decides the threshold issue will therefore substantially impact this case.

27
28

6.

District Courts have the inherent power to “stay proceedings in one suit until the

decision of another” in furtherance of administration of justice. Landis v. N. Am. Co. (1936) 199
1
Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY

1

U.S. 248, 249. The purpose of this power is to permit every court to control the disposition of

2

cases on its docket “with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id.

3

at 254-55. The Landis factors are [1] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

4

required to go forward, [2] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, and

5

[3] the orderly course of justice. Id.

6

7.

The granting of certiorari is an appropriate time to stay cases reliant upon the case

7

under review. See Robledo v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 17-CV-01003-BLF, 2017 WL 4934205, at

8

*2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017) (where certiorari had been granted by the Supreme Court on a

9

threshold issue, Judge freeman stayed the case, finding succinctly that “…if the Supreme Court

10

upholds the Ninth Circuit's decision…the Plaintiffs have the stronger case…However, if the

11

Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit…Randstad has a strong likelihood of prevailing…”)

12

8.

The stay would alleviate the hardship or inequity to both parties of litigating a case

13

that could ultimately be rendered moot or at least seriously impacted; presents no damage

14

resulting from the stay; and promotes the orderly course of justice as both parties await the

15

pending threshold decision from the highest court in the land, which has granted certiorari to the

16

issue.

17

9.

No trial date has been set, so this request will not impact any pending trial dates.

18

10.

Accordingly, the parties jointly seek via this administrative motion a stay of the

19

current action, including vacating of the current dates in the action until the United States Supreme

20

Court has decided the threshold issue presented in Newton. As the parties anticipate the Supreme

21

Court will issue its decision no earlier than July 2019, the parties would request that Court set a

22

Status Conference in August 2019.

23

THEREFORE, the parties jointly request that the Court enter an Order:

24

1.

Vacating all dates;

25

2.

Staying this matter until such time that the stay order is lifted by this Court; and

26

3.

Setting a Status Conference for a date in August 2019.

27
28

IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
2
Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY

1
2 DATED: February 12, 2019

STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC

3
4
By: /s/ Aris E. Karakalos
Michael A. Strauss
Aris E. Karakalos
Andrew C. Ellison
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARLIN McCLURE and the
Putative Class

5
6
7
8
9 DATED: February 12, 2019
10

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

11
12

By: /s/ Jason P. Brown
Douglas J. Farmer
Jason P. Brown
Attorneys for Defendant
WAVELAND SERVICES, INC.

13
14
15

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
16
I attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other
17
signatory.
18
19 DATED: February 12, 2019
20

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

21
22
23
24
25

By: /s/ Jason P. Brown
DOUGLAS J. FARMER
BRIAN D. BERRY
JASON P. BROWN
Attorneys for Defendant
WAVELAND SERVICES, INC.

26
27
28
3
Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY

ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4

A Status Conference is ordered to take place on August 15, 2019 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom

5 3 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California before District Judge
6 Kimberly J. Mueller, with the filing of a joint status report due seven days prior.
7
8

DATED: February 20, 2019.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY