Whiteside v. SPSG Partners et al

Filing 13

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/14/2020 VACATING the deadlines set forth in this Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order and DIRECTING the parties to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court'sorder on 5 Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f). (Coll, A)

1 Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752)

Justin P. Rodriguez (Cal. State Bar No. 278275)

2 Brittany V. Berzin (Cal. State Bar No. 325121)
3
4
5
6
7
8

Renald Konini (Cal. State Bar No. 312080)
Jessica L. Hart (Cal. State Bar No. 331441)
Shimoda Law Corp.
9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHON WHITESIDE

9 individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13 STEPHON WHITESIDE, individually and on Case No.: 2:20-cv-01643-TLN-DMC
behalf of all other similarly situated

14 employees,

Hon. Troy L. Nunley

15

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL
DISCLOSURE AND REQUIREMENTS
OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND
REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S
INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND

16
17

Plaintiff,
vs.
SPSG PARTNERS, an Unincorporated Joint

18 Venture; SPSG PARTNERS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company;

19 SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
20 California Corporation; SUKUT
21
22
23
24

CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company;
GOODFELLOWS BROS. CALIFORNIA,
LLC., a California Limited Liability
Company; PACIFIC STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive,

Complaint Filed: Jan. 13, 2020
Removed to Fed. Court: Aug. 14, 2020

25
26

Defendants.

27
28
017088.0000829
822987.1

1
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND

1

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF

2 RECORD:
3

Plaintiff STEPHON WHITESIDE (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants SPSG PARTNERS;

4 SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC.; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, LLC; GOODFELLOW
5 BROS. CALIFORNIA, LLC; and PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS,
6 INC. (“Defendants”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) hereby submit this joint
7 stipulation to extend time for initial disclosure and requirements of FRCP, Rule 26(A)(1) and
8 (F) and request to vacate the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order pending an Order on
9 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and state as follows:
10

STIPULATION

11

1.

WHEREAS, Defendants removed this PAGA action from Butte County Superior

12 Court on August 14, 2020. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1);
13

2.

WHEREAS, the Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on August 14,

14 2020. (D.E. 2);
15

3.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this action back to state court on

16 September 11, 2020. (D.E. 5);
17

4.

WHEREAS, the Motion to Remand was fully briefed on October 7, 2020. (D.E.

5.

WHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, during the Rule 26(f) conference, the Parties

18 10);
19

20 agreed after thoughtful consideration that, given the pending Motion to Remand and
21 considering judicial and party efficiency, it was best to request that the deadlines in the Court’s
22 Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order be vacated, pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s Motion to
23 Remand to determine the threshold issue of removal. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
24 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009)
25 (“A federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it
26 has jurisdiction”); Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-431
27 (2007) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause; it may not assume
28 jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits of the case”);
2

017088.0000829
822987.1

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND

1

6.

WHEREAS, the Parties further agree that postponing the initial disclosure

2 requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) and (f) until Plaintiff’s challenge to jurisdiction has been resolved
3 will facilitate to the mutual goal of the Parties to minimize attorneys’ fees;
4

7.

WHEREAS, the Parties agree and propose to confer in accordance with Rule

5 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within
6 the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file
7 their report pursuant to Rule 26(f);
8

8.

This extension is the first extension sought regarding the initial disclosure

9 requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) and (f);
10

9.

The extension is not sought for any improper purpose or to delay and will not

11 result in prejudice to either party;
12

10.

If the Court is not inclined to vacate the deadlines in the Order pending a ruling

13 on the Motion to Remand, the Parties will promptly submit requested scheduling dates and a
14 full Joint Statement of the case;
15

11.

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f)

16 within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the
17 time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their
18 report pursuant to Rule 26(f) and request that the Court vacate the deadlines set forth in the
19 Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order until the Court issues an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to
20 Remand, subject to this Court’s approval.
21
22 Dated: October 13, 2020

SHIMODA LAW CORP.

23
24
25
26
27
28
017088.0000829
822987.1

By: _/s/ Galen T. Shimoda_______
Galen T. Shimoda
Justin P. Rodriguez
Brittany V. Berzin
Renald Konini
Jessica L. Hart
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND

1
2
3
4

Dated: October 13, 2020

ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD &
ROMO

5
6
7

By: __/s/ Mia A. Lomedico____________
Scott K. Dauscher
Mia A. Lomedico
Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
017088.0000829
822987.1

4
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND

1

ORDER

2

The COURT, having considered the above stipulation, HEREBY ORDERS that:

3

1. That the deadlines set forth in this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order are vacated;

4
5

and
2. The Parties shall confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s

6

order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by

7

Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report

8

pursuant to Rule 26(f).

9
10
11

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
DATED: October 14, 2020

13
14
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
017088.0000829
822987.1

5
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S INITIAL
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND