Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al

Filing 178

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 177 Stipulation For Expedited Consideration of Motion (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1
2
3
4

JAMES C. STURDEVANT (SBN 94551)
([e-mail])
THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9

MARK TALAMANTES (SBN 187961)
([e-mail])
JENNIFER A. REISCH (SBN 223671)
([e-mail])
TALAMANTES/VILLEGAS/CARRERA, LLP
170 Columbus Avenue, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13

MONIQUE OLIVIER (SBN 190385)
([e-mail])
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 1010
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
(ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON LAST PAGE)
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, et al.,

19

Case No.: CV09-03495 SC

Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
MOTION

20

v.

21

JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Texas Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.

23

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

February 24, 2012
10:00 am
1, 17th Flr.
Hon. Samuel Conti

Complaint filed:
Trial Date:

22

June 22, 2009
March 12, 2012

24
25
26

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF MOTION; CASE NO. CV 09-03495 SC

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Alejandro Juarez, Maria Juarez, and

2

Maria Portillo (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Jani-King of California, Inc., Jani-King, Inc., and Jani-

3

King International, Inc. (“Defendants”), hereby state as follows:

4

1.

The trial in this matter is scheduled for March 12, 2012.

5

2.

On January 23, 2012, the Court issued an order that, among other rulings, granted

6

summary judgment against the claims brought under the California Labor Code (Counts 8-13). (Dkt.

7

168).

8

3.

On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28

9

U.S.C. § 1292(b) and to Stay Further Proceedings Pending Appeal. (Dkt. 176). In that motion,

10

Plaintiffs seek certification for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding the proper

11

standard to be applied to Labor Code claims that are brought by alleged franchisees.

12

4.

Based on consultations with the Court’s clerk, the soonest hearing date under N.D.

13

Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) is March 9, 2012, which is two business days before the scheduled trial.

14

(Declaration of Monique Olivier (“Olivier Decl.”), Exh. A).

15

5.

The parties will need to spend considerable resources prior to March 9 to get ready

16

for trial on March 12, including scheduling and preparing witnesses, reviewing voluminous

17

deposition transcripts and documents, identifying and preparing exhibits, briefing motions in limine

18

and other trial matters, drafting jury instructions, preparing opening statements, etc. (Olivier Decl.).

19

6.

Given the benefits of obtaining a ruling on the Plaintiffs’ motion on a more expedited

20

basis, the parties have agreed to shorten the normal motion schedule and to waive oral argument.

21

Defendant has agreed to file its opposition on or before February 13, 2012.

22

7.

Through consultation with the Court’s clerk, counsel were advised that an earlier

23

hearing date was available on February 24, 2012, if permitted by the Court. (Olivier Decl.). As a

24

result, the parties are scheduling a hearing for that date in the event the Court rules that a hearing is

25

necessary.

26

8.

A proposed order is included below.

27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF MOTION; CASE NO. CV 09-03495 SC

1

DATED: February 3, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation

2
3

TALAMANTES/VILLEGAS/CARRERA, LLP

4
5

DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ
OLIVIER LLP

6

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

7

By:

/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan
Shannon Liss-Riordan
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP

10

By:

/s/ Eileen M. Hunter
Eileen M. Hunter
Kerry L. Bundy
Aaron von Oort
Attorneys for Defendants

11
12
13

BARTKO, ZANKEL, TARRANT & MILLER

14

By:

/s/ Benjamin K. Riley
Benjamin K. Riley
Attorneys for Defendants

15
16
17

[PROPOSED] ORDER

18

Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the Plaintiffs’ motion for certification and to stay (Dkt.

19
20
21
22

176) will be heard on an expedited basis and without oral argument.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 3, 2012
Dated: _______________________

_____________________________
The Honorable Samuel Conti
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF MOTION; CASE NO. CV 09-03495 SC