Tokoshima et al v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting #16 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION AND CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULING filed by Steve Tokoshima. Motion for class certification Hearing reset for 1/24/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/25/2013. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709)
Eileen B. Goldsmith (SBN 218029)
Rachel J. Zwillinger (SBN 268684)
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

10

Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798)
RASTEGAR & MATERN,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW APC
1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
Torrance, CA 90501
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

17

John S. Battenfeld (SBN 119513)
Jason S. Mills (SBN 225126)
Hien Nguyen (SBN 2297954)
Kathy H. Gao (SBN 259019)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

18

Attorneys for Defendants

7
8
9

13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22

STEVE TOKOSHIMA, LUIS FLORES, and
JAMES FABER, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

23
24
25
26

CASE NO.: C 12-4810 CRB
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING MEDIATION AND CLASS
CERTIFICATION SCHEDULING

vs.
THE PEP BOYS - MANNY MOE & JACK OF
CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; THE PEP
BOYS - MANNY MOE & JACK, a Pennsylvania
corporation; and DOES 1-10,

27
Defendants.
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION, Case No. C 12-4810 CRB

1

WHEREAS plaintiffs originally filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court on

2

August 6, 2012, and defendants then timely removed this action to the United States District Court

3

for the Northern District of California pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act;

4
5

WHEREAS the parties were unable to commence discovery in this action until after their
initial Rule 26(f) conference in December 2012;

6

WHEREAS at the time of the initial case management conference, the parties had agreed to

7

pursue private mediation, but had not yet agreed to the timing of the mediation. In particular, the

8

parties informed the Court in their Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed on January

9

11, 2013, that “depending on initial discovery, the parties will assess whether mediation should

10

occur before or after any certification motion is decided.” Dkt. No. 11 at 11;

11

WHEREAS at the initial case management conference in this action on January 18, 2013,

12

this Court scheduled the hearing on class certification in this action to be held on September 20,

13

2013. Dkt. No. 14;

14

WHEREAS based on the September 20, 2013 hearing date, the parties met and conferred,

15

and agreed to a briefing schedule on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, pursuant to which

16

plaintiffs’ motion would be filed no later than July 10, 2013, defendants’ opposition would be filed

17

no later than August 16, 2013, and plaintiffs’ reply would be filed no later than September 6, 2013;

18

WHEREAS the parties have been diligently engaged in promulgating and responding to

19

written discovery since January 18, 2013 and have met and conferred to address various discovery

20

issues;

21

WHEREAS the parties have now agreed to mediate this case before the filing of plaintiffs’

22

motion for class certification, in order to attempt to resolve this case while avoiding unnecessary

23

expense and burdens on the parties of discovery and briefing related to class certification issues;

24

WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred and agreed upon a mediator, Mark Rudy of

25

the San Francisco firm of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe LLP, and have scheduled the mediation for

26

July 24, 2013;

27
28

WHEREAS the date for mediation has been selected in order to permit the parties sufficient
time to conduct necessary formal and informal discovery to prepare for the mediation and to have
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION, Case No. C 12-4810 CRB

1

sufficient information about the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses and the extent

2

of defendants’ potential exposure, and the parties are meeting and conferring regarding the scope

3

of that formal and informal discovery;

4

WHEREAS, this discovery will include 30(b)(6) depositions of corporate witnesses located

5

at defendants’ headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which will require the coordination of

6

travel schedules for counsel for the parties;

7

WHEREAS, plaintiffs have informed defendants that they are willing to defer production of

8

certain discovery necessary for filing plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and discovery-

9

related motion practice, because that discovery is not necessary for plaintiffs to evaluate the case

10

sufficiently to attempt to resolve the case through mediation but this discovery will need to be

11

conducted if the mediation does not result in a settlement;

12

WHEREAS the current schedule for class certification, pursuant to which plaintiffs’ motion

13

would be filed on July 10, 2013, would require the parties to invest substantial time and resources

14

in formal discovery and class certification briefing before the scheduled July 24 mediation. In

15

particular, the current schedule for class certification would require plaintiffs to have completed all

16

of their formal class certification-related discovery and filed their class certification motion, and

17

defendants to have completed almost all of their class certification-related discovery and briefing,

18

before the July 24 mediation, thereby frustrating the parties’ purposes in agreeing to conduct an

19

early, pre-class certification mediation after limited formal discovery and before the completion of

20

discovery and the briefing of certification issues in this case;

21

WHEREAS avoiding unnecessary litigation regarding class certification would be

22

advantageous to the parties and to this Court, by conserving the Court’s and the parties’ resources;

23

WHEREAS, it would conserve the parties’ resources to continue the class certification

24

hearing date so that the parties can participate in mediation on July 24, 2013 without having had to

25

complete all discovery necessary for class certification, with sufficient time after the mediation to

26

complete discovery (and any discovery-related motion practice) and move for class certification if

27

mediation is unsuccessful;

28

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION, Case No. C 12-4810 CRB

1

The parties jointly request that the class certification hearing set for September 20, 2013, be

2

vacated, and that a new hearing date be set for January 24, 2014 with a briefing schedule similar to

3

the schedule previously agreed to by the parties.

4
5

DATED: March 22, 2013

/s/ Eve H. Cervantez
Eve H. Cervantez
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STEVE TOKOSHIMA, LUIS FLORES, and
JAMES FABER

DATED: March 22, 2013

/s/ John S. Battenfeld
John S. Battenfeld
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF
CALIFORNIA and THE PEP BOYS – MANNY,
MOE & JACK

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO

16

ORDERED. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification shall be heard on January 24, 2014 at 10:00

17

a.m.

18

Dated: March 25, 2013

25

R NIA

. Breyer

ER

LI

J

FO

arles R
udge Ch

H

24

RT

23

O

IT IS S

NO

22

_________________________
HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
E
United States DistrictD
ORDER Judge

A

21

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

19

S

15

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION, Case No. C 12-4810 CRB