Michael Hummel et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER granting 14 Stipulation Requesting A Stay of Discovery and All Other Proceedings Pending Final Approval of Class Settlement filed by Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/21/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
SHARON R. VINICK (State Bar No. 129914)
E-mail: [e-mail]
DARCI BURREL (State Bar No. 180467)
E-mail: [e-mail]
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL HUMMEL and BRIAN BOTELHO,
on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated.
(Counsel Continued on Next Page)

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

MICHAEL HUMMEL and BRIAN
BOTELHO, on behalf of themselves,
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19

vs.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., a
California Limited Partnership and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Case No. 3:14-cv-03683
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING
A STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ALL
OTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
SETTLEMENT IN SMITH V. BIMBO
BAKERIES, USA, INC.

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING A STAY OF
DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03683

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
KATHERINE H. DICK, State Bar No. 273688
E-mail: [e-mail]
One Market, Spear Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
MICHAEL J. PUMA (ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE)
E-mail: [e-mail]
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.
Attorneys for Defendants
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING A STAY OF
DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03683

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

Plaintiffs Michael Hummel and Brian Botelho (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and
through their respective counsel of record, hereby file this Joint Stipulation
Requesting A Stay of Discovery and All Other Proceedings Pending Final
Approval of Class Settlement in Smith v. Bimbo Bakeries, USA, Inc. and state as
follows:
1.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in this case seek to represent a putative class

of all current and former Relief Drivers in the state of California and assert
several causes of action against Defendant, including: (1) failure to pay the
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay all wages earned in a
timely manner; (3) failure to pay wages due upon discharge, layoff or resignation
(waiting time penalties); (4) failure to provide timely accurate itemized wage
statements; (5) failure to provide and/or authorize meal and rest periods/unpaid
wages; (6) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (7) unfair business practices
and for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. ECF No. 1, Ex. A., Complaint, ¶¶ 39-108.
2.

WHEREAS, on September 5, 2014, in a separate litigation in the

Central District of California, Plaintiffs Tyrone Smith, Greg Villanueva, and John
Caudill, individually and on behalf of a conditionally certified Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action members and putative Rule 23 class members,
moved for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement in an action against
Defendant captioned Tyrone Smith, et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Civ. A.
No. 2:12-cv-01689-CAS-PJW, pending before Judge Christina A. Snyder (“the
Smith Action”). See ECF No. 119, Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for
Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
(“Unopposed Motion”). Plaintiffs in the Smith Action seek to represent all of the
same current and former Route Sales Representatives and similar employees,

28
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING A STAY OF
DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03683

1
2
3
4

including Relief Drivers, in the state of California who Plaintiffs in this case
purport to represent. ECF No. 119, Unopposed Motion, pp 2-4. The Smith
Action commenced before this Action when Plaintiffs in the Smith Action filed
their initial Complaint on February 28, 2012. ECF No. 1, Complaint.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

3.

not pay minimum, regular/straight-time and overtime wages to which Plaintiffs
were allegedly entitled, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and/or the California Labor Code, did not provide meal
and rest periods in violation of the California’s Labor Code, failed to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages timely upon separation,
engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17200, et seq., and also assert other claims under the Private
Attorney General Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. ECF No. 119,
Unopposed Motion, pp. 2-4.

15
16
17
18
19

4.

22
23
24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, the pending settlement in the Smith Action may release

and preclude some or all of the class claims in this Action and will also release
and preclude Plaintiffs’ individual claims in this Action if they do not opt-out of
the Smith Action when they are provided the opportunity to do so through the
settlement notice process in the coming months.

20
21

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in the Smith Action allege that Defendant did

5.

WHEREAS, the Court in this Action issued an Initial Case

Management Scheduling Order setting deadlines for the Parties to: meet and
confer concerning initial disclosures, early settlement, and ADR Process
selection; submit a Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report;
exchange Initial Disclosures; and attend a Case Management Conference. ECF
No. 8.
6.

WHEREAS, judicial economy would be best served by vacating the

dates issued in this Court’s August 18, 2014 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 8] and

28
-4-

1
2
3

staying discovery and all other proceedings in this Action until the Court and the
Parties to this action know whether Judge Snyder grants a Final Approval of the
Class Settlement in the Smith Action.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

STIPULATION AND REQUEST
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully propose
as follows:
1.

That the Court vacate the deadlines and proceedings set forth in its

August 18, 2014 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 8] and stay discovery in this Action
until Final Approval of the Class Settlement is decided in the Smith Action.
2.

That the Parties will report back to this Court within fourteen (14)

days after a Final Class Settlement Approval Order is entered in the Smith Action
to determine whether any further proceedings, including discovery, are required
in this Action and, if so, to propose a new schedule
SO REQUESTED AND STIPULATED.
Dated: October 21, 2014
LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS
LLP

17
By s/ Sharon R. Vinick
SHARON R. VINICK
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18
19
20

Dated: October 21, 2014

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

21
22
23

By s/ Michael J. Puma
MICHAEL J. PUMA
Attorneys for Defendant

24
25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

United States Magistrate Judge
Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley

27
28

21
Dated: October __, 2014

-5-