Martin v. City of Richmond

Filing 98

ORDER to vacate deadlines scheduled in this matter due to pending settlement discussions re 97 Stipulation filed by Kevin Martin. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/22/09. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Harry S. Stern (SBN 176854) Peter A. Hoffmann (SBN 254354) RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 230 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] William B. Aitchison (SBN 90642) AITCHISON & VICK, INC. 3021 NE Broadway Portland, OR 97232 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff: KEVIN MARTIN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN MARTIN Plaintiff, v. CITY OF RICHMOND Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: C 06 6146 CRB STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO VACATE THE DEADLINES SCHEDULED IN THIS MATTER DUE TO PENDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

Plaintiff Kevin Martin ("Plaintiff") and Defendant City of Richmond ("City") jointly submit this Stipulation and Request to Vacate the Deadlines Scheduled in this Matter Due to Pending Settlement Discussions, and hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, on June 22, 2009, the Court issued a Case Management and Settlement Conference Order scheduling deadlines by which the parties must complete discovery, bring dispositive motions, and stipulate to conditional collective action certification. 1
MOTION TO VACATE DATES DUE TO SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS, on June 22, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation conditionally certifying this action as a collective action for purposes of discovery and trial. Under the stipulation, the parties agreed that this action should proceed on a representative basis and further agreed to randomly select representative plaintiffs by July 17, 2009. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2009, the parties randomly selected representative plaintiffs for each subgroup identified in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. WHEREAS, the stipulation to proceed as a collective action authorizes the City to propound all discovery mechanisms upon each of the 16 representative plaintiffs, and authorizes Plaintiff to depose up to 10 defense witnesses in addition to any expert or 30(b)(6) witnesses designated by the City. WHEREAS, on two separate occasions, the parties have continued, with court approval, the dates set forth in the June 22, 2009 Case Management and Settlement Conference Order. Currently, the parties have until October 23, 2009 to complete discovery and until November 20, 2009 to file and serve any dispositive motions. These are the only deadlines currently on calendar. WHEREAS, to date, the parties have completed a significant portion of the discovery contemplated in their conditional collective action certification stipulation. However, due to factors outside of their control (stemming mainly from issues involving witness availability), the parties have been unable to complete all discovery contemplated. WHEREAS, since receiving this Court's order on September 21, 2009, the parties have continued to engage in extensive settlement discussions. Presently, the parties are close to reaching agreement on the terms of the proposed settlement, which would resolve this collective action in its entirety. Accordingly, in light of this progress, the parties wish to vacate the deadlines currently scheduled in this matter in order to focus their efforts on reaching a settlement and avoid incurring unnecessary, additional fees and costs. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES REQUEST AS FOLLOWS: 1. That due to the pending settlement, and to allow the parties to avoid incurring

further fees and costs in this matter, that the Court vacate the existing deadlines scheduled in 2
MOTION TO VACATE DATES DUE TO SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

this matter for completing discovery and bringing dispositive motions from its calendar. 2. That this matter be set for a case management conference on January 8, 2010, by

which time the parties expect to have a fully executed settlement agreement to present to the Court for approval. Pending the approval of the plaintiffs, the City Council, and this Court, the parties will also prepare a stipulation seeking to dismiss, with prejudice, this action in its entirety. In the event the parties are not successful in reaching a settlement agreement by January 8, 2010, the parties request that this Court order them to participate in a second settlement conference with Judge Spero in order to mediate any outstanding matters preventing settlement. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 21, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC

/s/ By: Peter A. Hoffmann Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kevin Martin et al.

Dated: October 21, 2009

Respectfully Submitted, RENEE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI, LLP

/s/ By: Steven Cikes Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond

UNIT ED

23 24 25 26 27 28

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

ER

N

MOTION TO VACATE DATES DUE TO SETTLEMENT

F D IS T IC T O 3 R

A

C

LI

FO

harles Judge C

R. Brey

er

R NIA

OO IT IS S

RDERE

D

RT U O

NO

RT

H