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)
(jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com)
THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 477-2410
Facsimile: (415) 477-2420
5
6
7
8
9
MARK TALAMANTES (SBN 187961)
(mark@e-licenciados.com)
JENNIFER A. REISCH (SBN 223671)
(jennifer@e-licenciados.com)
TALAMANTES/VILLEGAS/CARRERA, LLP
170 Columbus Avenue, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 989-8000
Facsimile: (415) 989-8028
10
11
12
13
MONIQUE OLIVIER (SBN 190385)
(monique@dplolaw.com)
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 1010
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:(415) 433-0333
Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?