Paulsen et al v. Local No. 856 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al

Filing 31

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 27 Stipulation,, filed by Patricia Boneli, Jeff Virzi, Joe Martinelli, Lonnie Morris, Nuvia Edith Urizar, Marco Ramirez, Jeff White, Carmen M. Vance, Ulises Ramirez, Local No. 856 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jessica Fort, Simone Rivers, Kuo Lew, Fredi Bloom, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Kathleen Paulsen, Mary T. Mundal, Alisha Krupinskey, Selina Johnson, Wardell Anderson, Neva Smith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on October 27, 2008. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2008)

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

David M. Poore, SBN 192541 Scott A. Brown, SBN 177099 [e-mail] KAHN BROWN & POORE LLP 110 Kentucky Street Petaluma, California 94952 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Andrew H. Baker [e-mail] Beeson, Tayer & Bodine 1404 Franklin Street, 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] ext. 300 Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Teamsters Local 856, Joseph Martinelli Richard Gibson, Esq. [e-mail] International Brotherhood of Teamsters 25 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for IBT, Pro Hac Vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KATHLEEN PAULSEN; et al, on behalf themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOCAL NO. 856 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; JOE MARTINELLI; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. -1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PAULSEN V. LOCAL 856 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. C08-3109 EDL

Case No. C08-3109 EDL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED UPON by the parties and their respective counsel of record that the Initial Case Management Conference ("CMC"), presently set for October 31, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. be continued for a period of approximately three to four weeks to allow the Court to issue a ruling on the pending Motions to Dismiss, and provide the parties an opportunity to prepare an Initial CMC Statement and Discovery Plan once the Court rules upon the motions. Defendants currently have hearings on their Motions to Dismiss scheduled for October 31, 2008. Until the motions are ruled on, it would be difficult for the parties to separate the issues to address before the court in a Case Management Conference. The parties have also agreed to extend the time for filing initial disclosures in accordance with the new Case Management Conference date. Good cause exists to continue the Case Management Conference on the following grounds. First, the parties' attorneys recently attended a meet and confer conference to develop a Joint Case Management Conference. However, the attorneys were unable to complete the meet and confer conference as the status of the pleadings is unclear in light of the pending Motions to Dismiss. In particular, the parties were unable to discern what pertinent factual and legal issues will be in dispute in this litigation as the outcome of the pending Rule 12 motions may alter the number of the causes of action, or the number of defendants in this case. Second, the parties were unable to develop a joint Discovery Plan as the claims may be impacted by the pending motions. As a result, the preparation of a Joint CMC Statement and Discovery Plan would be premature until the ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. Finally, the parties are not making this request for any improper purpose, including delay. Instead, the parties are making this request in order to promote judicial economy, including avoiding an unnecessary Initial CMC hearing in which the parties are unable to address the pertinent issues to develop a discovery plan and narrow the factual and legal issues for discovery and trial. /// /// /// -2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PAULSEN V. LOCAL 856 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. C08-3109 EDL

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 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: October 24, 2008

KAHN BROWN & POORE LLP

/s/ David M. Poore David M. Poore Attorneys for Plaintiff

___________

Date: October 24, 2008

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE /s/ Andrew H. Baker Andrew H. Baker Attorneys for Defendants Teamsters Local 856, Joseph Martinelli, and Local Counsel for IBT

Date: October 24, 2008

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

/s/ Richard Gibson Richard Gibson Attorneys for Defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Pro Hac Vice

-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PAULSEN V. LOCAL 856 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. C08-3109 EDL

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 October 27, 2008 Dated: _____________________

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court finds that good cause exists to continue the Initial Case Management Conference. The Initial Case Management Conference is continued from 10:00 a.m November 25 October 31, 2008, to ___________________, 2008, at _____________.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco, California.
UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

rte D. Lapo ______________________________________ lizabeth Judge E HON. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE E

RN

F D IS T IC T O R

-4STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PAULSEN V. LOCAL 856 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL. C08-3109 EDL

A

C

LI

FO

R NIA

IT IS S

O ORD

ERED

RT U O

NO

RT

H