Barbosa et al v. Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. et al

Filing 17

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/26/2021 MODIFYING the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: The Parties must complete all class discovery by 4/21/2022; The Parties must designate in writing and file with the Court the name, address, and area of expertise of each expert they proposed to tender at trial not later than sixty (60) days after the close of discovery on 4/21/2022; The Parties must file for Class Certification by 7/21/2022; The Parties' Deadline to complete merits discovery and trial shall be set after the Court's order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.(Becknal, R)

1 STAN S. MALLISON (Bar No. 184191)
[e-mail]
2 HECTOR R. MARTINEZ (Bar No. 206336)
[e-mail]
3 LILIANA GARCIA (Bar No. 311396)
[e-mail]
4 MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
5 Oakland, California 94612-3547
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated employees
8

[Additional Counsel Continued On Next Page]

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

IRMA BARBOSA and CECILIA MATA, on
13 behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated,
14
Plaintiffs
15
16

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

vs.

17 DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI,
INC. AKA "DELTA FRESH"; SALINAS
18 FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.;
19 ERNIE COSTAMAGNA, an individual,
ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA, an
20 individual, and DOES 1-20
21

Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

Trial Date: Not Set

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

1
2 CHRISTINA C. TILLMAN (Bar No. 258627)
[e-mail]
3 MELISSA K. CERRO (Bar No. 304268)
[e-mail]
4 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
5
7647 North Fresno Street
6 Fresno, California 93720
Telephone: [phone]
7 Facsimile: [phone]
8 Attorneys for Defendants, DELTA PACK COMPANY OF LODI, INC.
AKA “DELTA FRESH,” ERNIE COSTAMAGNA, and
9
ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA
10
11 RONALD H. BARSAMIAN (Bar No. 81531)
PATRICK S. MOODY (Bar No. 156928)
12 FAITH L. DRISCOLL (Bar No. 291486)
BARSAMIAN & MOODY
13
A Professional Company
14 Attorneys at Law
1141 W. Shaw Avenue, #104
15 Fresno, California 93711
Telephone: [phone]
16 Facsimile: [phone]
17 Email: [e-mail]
18 Attorneys for Defendant, SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

1
2
3
4

This stipulation (“Stipulation”) is made between Plaintiffs Irma Barbosa and Cecilia
Mata, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, and Defendants Delta Packing
Company of Lodi, Inc. also known as “Delta Fresh,” Salinas Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., Ernie
Costamagna, and Annamarie Costamagna (hereinafter collectively, “Parties”), based on the

5 following:
RECITALS

6
7
8
9
10
11

1. Plaintiffs filed their Class Action and FLSA Complaint against Defendants on May
29, 2020. Three days later, on June 1, 2020, the Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order
pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 3. The Parties believed that
the dates proposed in the Initial Scheduling Order would later be modified during a Status
Conference held on a date to be set by the Court.
2. On July 16, 2020, the Parties discussed the anticipated Status Conference and

12 determined that Counsel for Defendants Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. aka “Delta Fresh,”
13 Ernie Costamagna, and Annamarie Costamagna would draft the Joint Status Conference Report
after the date for a Status Conference was set by the Court. The Joint Status Conference Report
14
was not drafted by Counsel for the Defendant because the Status Conference was not set by the
15
Court. However, this communication evidences the Parties’ shared understanding that a Status
16
Conference would occur.
17
3. On November 2, 2020, the Parties met and conferred pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(f)
18 and agreed that postponing Initial Disclosures would allow the Parties to avoid potentially
19 unnecessary litigation costs. On November 10, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and
20 Order to Continue Time for Initial Disclosures continuing the deadline for Initial Disclosures
until ninety (90) days following the original November 16, 2020 deadline. Dkt. No. 13. 4. On
21
February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Initial Disclosures. On February 16, 2021, Defendants
22
filed their Initial Disclosures.
23
4. At the 26(f) meet and confer on November 2, 2020, the Parties did not stipulate to the
24 continuation of other due dates because they anticipated doing so at a Status Conference.
25 However, the Parties have not attended a Joint Status Conference and therefore have not
26 modified any other deadlines. For this reason, all due dates in effect, aside from the deadline for
the Initial Disclosures, are those set forth in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.
27
3
28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

1
2
3

5. The Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order states that “All discovery, with the exception of
expert discovery, shall be completed no later than two hundred forty (240) days from the date
upon which the last answer may be filed with the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Defendants consented to Plaintiffs’ request to waive service of summons pursuant to

4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The date upon which the last answer could be filed with the
5 Court was determined to be June 25, 2020.
6
7
8
9

6. According to the Initial Scheduling Order, all discovery is to be completed by April
21, 2021. However, the deadline for the Initial Disclosures was extended and the Initial
Disclosures from the Parties were not filed until February 12, 2021 by Plaintiffs, and February
16, 2021 by Defendants. The Initial Disclosures were made by Parties just sixty-six (66) days
ago and the Parties cannot reasonably be expected to complete all discovery in the short amount

10 of time following Initial Disclosures.
11

7. There is good cause to modify the Initial Scheduling Order because it will allow the

12 Parties to complete discovery and the Court to decide the case on the merits. The Parties could
not begin the process of discovery until after the 26(f) meet and confer on November 2, 2020.
13
Discovery between June 25, 2020 and November 2, 2020 was falsely recognized in the Initial
14
Scheduling Order, despite the fact that this time was not actually being available to the Parties to
15
engage in discovery. All Parties were under the same reasonable impression that deadlines were
16 to be modified at a Status Conference after the creation of the Initial Scheduling Order. If the
17 stipulation to modify the Initial Scheduling Order is denied, the Parties will suffer severe
18 prejudice.
STIPULATION

19
20
21
22

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate that, subject to the Court’s
order, the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order to be modified as follows:
(a) The Parties must complete all class discovery by April 21, 2022;
(b) The Parties designate in writing and file with the Court the name, address, and area of

23

expertise of each expert they proposed to tender at trial not later than sixty (60) days

24

after the close of discovery on April 21, 2022;

25
26
27

(c) The Parties must file for Class Certification by July 21, 2022; and
(d) Deadline to complete merits discovery and trial shall be set after the Court’s order on
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
4

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

1
2

SO STIPULATED.
Dated: April 23, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

3
4

By:

5

Hector Martinez
Liliana Garcia
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6
7

/s/ Hector R. Martinez

8
By:

9

/s/ Christina Tillman

12

Christina Tillman
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD,WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
Attorneys for Defendants

13

By:

14

Patrick Moody
BARSAMIAN & MOODY
Attorneys for Defendants

10
11

15

/s/ Patrick Moody

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN

1

ORDER

2
3
4

After consideration of the Stipulation, the Court’s file in this action, and good cause
appearing to modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 3), the Court modifies its

5 Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows:
6

(a) The Parties must complete all class discovery by April 21, 2022.

7

(b) The Parties must designate in writing and file with the Court the name, address, and

8
9
10
11
12

area of expertise of each expert they proposed to tender at trial not later than sixty
(60) days after the close of discovery on April 21, 2022.
(c) The Parties must file for Class Certification by July 21, 2022.
(d) The Parties’ Deadline to complete merits discovery and trial shall be set after the
Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15 Dated: April 26, 2021
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

6

28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 20-cv-01096-TLN-KJN