Delagarza et al v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company

Filing 212

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 211 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference filed by Charles Grimmett, Sal Lucido, Rick Delagarza, Brian Cashwell, April Moore, Paul Gutierrez, Antonio Garcia Case Management Statement due by 5/2/2013. Further Case Management Conference set for 5/9/2013 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/6/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 JAY SMITH (CA Bar No. 166105) (Email: LINDA S. FANG (CA Bar No. 240245) (Email: GILBERT & SACKMAN, A Law Corporation 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 Tel: (323) 938-3000, Fax: (323) 937-9139 5 6 7 8 9 RICHARD R. ROUCO (pro hac vice) (Email: QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO 2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380 Birmingham, Alabama 35223 Tel: (205) 870-9989, Fax: (205) 803-4142 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rick Delagarza, Paul Gutierrez, Sal Lucido, April Moore, Charles Grimmett, Antonio Garcia, and Brian Cashwell 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WILLIAM DRITSAS (CA Bar No. 97523) (Email: SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: (415) 397-2823, Fax: (415) 397-8549 TIMOTHY M. RUSCHE (CA Bar No. 230036) (Email: KRISTEN M. AGNEW (CA Bar No. 247656) (Email: SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 270-9665, Fax: (310) 201-5219 18 19 Attorneys for Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO 22 23 24 25 RICK DELAGARZA, individually, PAUL GUTIERREZ, SAL LUCIDO, APRIL MOORE, CHARLES GRIMMETT, ANTONIO GARCIA, and BRIAN CASHWELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. C 09-05803 EMC Assigned to the Hon. Edward M. Chen STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 26 27 TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 28 Defendants. Case No. C 09-05803 EMC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CMC 1 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12, Plaintiffs Rick Delagarza, Paul Gutierrez, Sal Lucido, April 2 Moore, Charles Grimmett, Antonio Garcia and Brian Cashwell (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant 3 Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (“Tesoro”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and 4 through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, a case management conference is currently scheduled in this matter for March 7, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.; WHEREAS, the Parties are engaged in substantial settlement negotiations with a high likelihood of success and hope to focus resources on settlement rather than continued litigation; WHEREAS, The Parties participated in two all-day, private mediation sessions with 10 Mediator Mark Rudy, on October 15, 2011 and May 14, 2012. After these sessions, the Parties 11 continued to engage in settlement discussions, ultimately agreeing to the principal terms of a 12 settlement in or around July 2012; 13 WHEREAS, after reaching agreement regarding the principal terms of settlement, the 14 Parties spent considerable time and dedicated significant resources to analyzing payroll data 15 consisting of the number of 12-hour shifts worked by, and the applicable wage rates for, each 16 class member in this case (for a period covering 7 1/2 years) and in Burgess v. Tesoro Ref. & 17 Mktg. Co., USCD Case No. 10-cv-05870 DMG (PLAx) (“Burgess”) (for a period covering more 18 than 4 years) to ensure that all eligible shifts were discovered in order to make accurate 19 settlement payments to all class members; 20 WHEREAS, on August 8, 2012, the Parties consolidated this case with Burgess, which 21 involves a certified class of employees at Tesoro’s Los Angeles refinery and is pending in the 22 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; 23 WHEREAS, after reaching the agreement in principal, the Parties also negotiated the 24 resolution of the “going forward” issues at Tesoro’s Los Angeles and Golden Eagle refineries, 25 which required the drafting and negotiation of supplemental agreements to two separate 26 collective bargaining agreements governing the terms and conditions of employment of class 27 members in this action and in Burgess, which required the participation of two local bargaining 28 committees of Plaintiffs’ labor union and Tesoro’s labor negotiators; Case No. C 09-05803 EMC 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CMC 1 WHEREAS, on or about December 4, 2012, the Parties finalized and executed a 2 detailed, 13-page Memorandum of Understanding specifying the terms of the global settlement 3 of this case, Burgess, and another related action, United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., 4 Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Shell Oil Co., Equilon 5 Enterp. LLC dba Shell Oil Prods. US, and Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co., USDC Case No. CV08- 6 3693 RGK (Ex), which is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 7 11-55242 and 11-55530; 8 9 WHEREAS, on December 10 and 11, 2012, Class Counsel traveled to and held inperson meetings with class members at the Los Angeles and Golden Eagle refineries to provide 10 information and answer questions regarding the settlement and proposed modifications to the 11 collective bargaining agreements. 12 WHEREAS, during and after these meetings, dozens of class members spoke to Class 13 Counsel regarding their individual settlement data, leading Class Counsel to discover certain 14 issues with the settlement data provided by Tesoro, including a number of employees who were 15 each missing six months to a year’s worth of shift data. 16 WHEREAS, in or around December 2012 and thereafter, Class Counsel brought these 17 issues to Tesoro’s attention and, on January 18, 2013 and thereafter, Tesoro provided Class 18 Counsel with three sets of supplemental data for more than 130 class members, consisting of 19 more than 10,000 additional shifts that had been inadvertently excluded from the settlement data. 20 WHEREAS, given the discovery of these issues, the Parties were required to renegotiate 21 certain aspects of their settlement agreement, and, on or about February 15, 2013, the Parties 22 reached an agreement on the revised settlement terms. 23 WHEREAS, the Parties have requested from the Burgess court a brief, two-week 24 continuance of the briefing deadlines to revise the motion for preliminary approval and 25 supporting documents, the settlement notice, the settlement agreement, and other supplemental 26 agreements in light of the revised settlement terms and are close to finalizing these documents. 27 The Parties have not sought an extension of the discovery, pre-trial or trial deadlines in that case; 28 and Case No. C 09-05803 EMC 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CMC 1 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that judicial economy would be promoted by continuing 2 the case management conference until May 2, 2013, or a date thereafter that is convenient for the 3 Court. 4 THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO STIPULATE AND RESPECTFULLY 5 REQUEST THAT THE COURT ORDER that the case management conference scheduled for 6 March 7, 2013, be continued to May 2, 2013, or the soonest available date thereafter. 7 8 DATED: March 4, 2013 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 9 By /s/ Timothy M. Rusche Timothy M. Rusche Kristen M. Agnew Attorneys for Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company 10 11 12 13 DATED: March 4, 2013 GILBERT & SACKMAN A LAW CORPORATION 14 15 By /s/ Linda S. Fang Linda S. Fang Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 17 18 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the case management 19 9 conference currently set for March 7, 2013 shall be rescheduled to May ____ at 10:30 a.m. 20 TC TE 6 TA DATED: March ____, 2013. __________________________________ HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN S 24 J 27 A H ER LI RT 26 . Chen ward M udge Ed NO 25 R NIA 23 DERED O OR IT IS S FO UNIT ED 22 RT U O 21 S DISTRIC N D IS T IC T R OF C 28 Case No. C 09-05803 EMC 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CMC 1 ATTESTATION 2 3 4 I, Linda S. Fang, am the ECF user whose ID and password were used to file the above Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference. In accordance with the Northern District of California’s General Order 45, X.B and Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory in this document. 5 /s/ Linda S. Fang Linda S. Fang 6 7 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 I, Linda S. Fang, certify that on March 4, 2013, the foregoing document entitled: 10 11 12 13 14 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE was filed electronically in the Court’s ECF; thereby upon completion the ECF system automatically generated a “Notice of Electronic Filing” as service through CM/ECF to registered e-mail addresses of parties of record in the case, in particular on the following: Timothy M. Rusche 15 16 William Dritsas 17 Kristen M. Agnew 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 4, 2013, at Los Angeles, California. 20 /s/ Linda S. Fang Linda S. Fang 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C 09-05803 EMC 3 ATTESTATION AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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?