Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 v. Central Concrete Supply Co Inc

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending deadline, within 60 days of Board decision, to complete ADR process; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 6/3/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RICHARD A. LEASIA, Bar No. 73397 [e-mail] KARIN M. COGBILL, Bar No. 244606 [e-mail] LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Attorneys for Defendant CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3, Plaintiff, Case No. C09-04153 MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING ADR DEADLINE

13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIT T LE R ME N D E LS O N
A PR O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 50 W. Sa n F e r n a n d o, 15th F lo o r Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 408. 99 8 . 41 5 0

CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC., Defendant.

Pursuant to Local ADR Rule 6-5 and Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 and Defendant CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC., (collectively, the "Parties"), submit this Stipulation and Proposed Order to the Court: STIPULATION WHEREAS, on December 2, 2009, the Court issued an Order Selecting ADR Process in the above-entitled action ("Order"); and WHEREAS, the Court's Order approved the stipulation between the Parties to participate in Mediation (ADR L.R. 6), and set a deadline for the Parties to hold the ADR session within 120 days from the date of the order, or April 1, 2010; and

FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING ADR DEADLINE

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
LIT T LE R ME N D E LS O N
A PR O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 50 W. Sa n F e r n a n d o, 15th F lo o r Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 408. 99 8 . 41 5 0

WHEREAS, the Parties were assigned to Mediator Jean C. Gaskill and conducted an initial telephone conference to discuss the mediation and scheduling on January 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to conduct the Mediation on March 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, on or about September 23, 2009, Defendant filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Plaintiff was violating the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §158(b)(4)(D); on October 23, 2009, the NLRB commenced a hearing on Defendant's charge under the provisions of Section 10(k) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §160(k); and on November 30, 2009 the parties filed post-hearing briefs; and WHEREAS, in March 2010, the Parties requested that the ADR deadline be continued to June 30, 2010 to allow the Board time to issue a decision with respect to Defendant's charge, which decision the Parties agreed may resolve some or all of the issues underlying this matter, and make its settlement or resolution more likely; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2010 the Court approved the Parties' stipulation and continued the deadline to complete ADR to June 30, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to conduct the Mediation on June 14, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Board has not yet issued a decision with respect to Defendant's charge, and it is uncertain at this time when said decision will issue; and WHEREAS, the Parties continue to believe that the Board's decision will have an effect on the merits of the instant action, and may resolve certain issues in the present matter, and therefore believe that it would be beneficial for settlement purposes if the Parties wait to attend mediation until the Board renders its decision; and WHEREAS, for good cause, to promote resolution of this matter and ensure a more productive Mediation of this matter, and to avoid the possibility of duplicative and inconsistent proceedings, the Parties jointly request an extension to participate in Mediation until 60 days after the Board issues a decision with respect to Defendant's charge; NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their respective undersigned counsel, stipulate and request that the Court approve a revised deadline for the Parties to comply with its Order, and direct that they participate in and complete the directed ADR proceedings within
FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007

2.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING ADR DEADLINE

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
LIT T LE R ME N D E LS O N
A PR O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 50 W. Sa n F e r n a n d o, 15th F lo o r Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 408. 99 8 . 41 5 0

60 days after the Board serves its decision with respect to Defendant's charge. Defendant shall notify the Court and the ADR Unit once a decision has been rendered by the Board and will coordinate with Plaintiff's counsel and Mediator Gaskill to schedule Mediation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: May 27, 2010

/s/Richard A. Leasia RICHARD A. LEASIA LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC. Dated: May 31, 2010

/s/Michael D. Nelson MICHAEL D. NELSON LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. NELSON Attorneys for Plaintiff OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3

ER

N

D IS T IC T R

OF

FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007

3.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING ADR DEADLINE

A

C

LI

FO

Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court Judgeel H. Pat Marilyn Judge

R NIA

6/3/2010 Dated: __________________

DERED SO OR IT IS _______________________________
NO

UNIT ED

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

RT

H