AFT Local 2121 et al v. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 47 Stipulation REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING TO ADVANCE HEARING DATE ON 38 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND.. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540)
EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH (SBN 218029)
PEDER J. V. THOREEN (SBN 217081)
MEREDITH A. JOHNSON (SBN 291018)
REBECCA C. LEE (SBN 305119)
Altshuler Berzon LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ROBERT J. BEZEMEK (SBN 058740)
DAVID CONWAY (SBN 253903)
Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek
A Professional Corporation
The Latham Square Building
1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 936
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19

AFT LOCAL 2121, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23
24

vs.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING
CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING TO
ADVANCE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR
COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES,
et al.,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE;
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

1

STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING TO ADVANCE
HEARING DATE

2

WHEREAS following Defendant ACCJC’s removal of this action to this Court, the parties

3

entered into two stipulations that were approved by this Court, regarding the time for Plaintiffs to

4

provide their proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to ACCJC to determine whether it

5

would stipulate to the filing of the SAC, or else to file an opposition to ACCJC’s pending Motion

6

to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. 8), see Dkt. 19, 21;

7

WHEREAS the Court issued an order on August 11, 2016 granting Plaintiffs until August

8

25, 2016 to provide the SAC to ACCJC, and, if ACCJC would not stipulate to the filing of the

9

SAC, ordering Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint or file their opposition to

10
11
12
13
14

the pending Motion to Dismiss no later than September 9, 2016 (Dkt. 25);
WHEREAS Plaintiffs timely provided the SAC to ACCJC on August 25, and ACCJC
subsequently informed Plaintiffs that it would not stipulate to the filing of the SAC;
WHEREAS this Court had initially set a Case Management Conference for September 27,
2016 when the matter was assigned to this Court (Dkt. 16);

15

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Case Management Order (Dkt. 16), the parties met and

16

conferred in advance of filing a Joint CMC statement on September 1, 2016, and in that meet-and-

17

confer agreed that if the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint,

18

Plaintiffs’ opposition to ACCJC’s pending Motion to Dismiss would be due seven days after the

19

Court’s order denying the Motion for Leave to Amend, and further agreed to so notify the Court in

20

the Joint CMC statement;

21

WHEREAS during the parties’ meet-and-confer, ACCJC’s counsel Kenneth Keller asked

22

that Plaintiffs set the hearing date on their Motion for Leave to Amend sufficiently early not to

23

conflict with a trial in which Mr. Keller was scheduled to participate in mid-November;

24

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint on September 9,

25

2016 (see Dkt. 30; refiled pursuant to the clerk’s directions as Dkt. 38), in accordance with the

26

Court’s August 11 scheduling order (Dkt. 25), noticed the motion for the first available hearing

27

date on the Court’s public law and motion calendar, which at that time was November 17, and

28

apologized to Mr. Keller for being unable to select an earlier hearing date;
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE;
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

1

WHEREAS both the proposed SAC and the pending FAC concern, among other things, the

2

impending decision of ACCJC in January 2017 as to the accreditation status of City College of San

3

Francisco, which may result in the immediate termination of City College’s accreditation, and

4

therefore Plaintiffs believe it is important to settle the pleadings promptly, and if at all possible

5

before the holiday season;

6

WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ lead attorneys have significant conflicts on the November 17

7

hearing date for the Motion for Leave to Amend, namely, Stephen Berzon will be recuperating

8

from surgery that will take place in mid-October and has been instructed by his doctor not to return

9

to work until late November, and Eileen Goldsmith is scheduled to be flying to Washington, DC,

10

that day for a November 18 meeting of the national board of directors of the AFL-CIO Lawyers

11

Coordinating Committee, of which she is a member;

12

WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with ACCJC’s counsel regarding the

13

hearing date for the Motion for Leave to Amend, and ACCJC agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’

14

request to advance the hearing date on the Motion for Leave to Amend to the Court’s law and

15

motion calendar on October 27 or November 3, 2016, subject to the Court’s approval;

16

WHEREAS Ms. Goldsmith is further unavailable on November 10, 2016 because she will

17

be arguing motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys’ fees in another

18

matter in Los Angeles Superior Court on that date;

19
20

WHEREAS on September 15, 2016, the Court vacated the September 27 CMC and did not
set a new CMC (Dkt. 43), and as a result the parties have not filed a Joint CMC statement;

21

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

22

1.

Subject to Court approval, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the

23

complaint shall be advanced to October 27 or November 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter

24

as is available on the Court’s calendar.

25
26

2.

If the Court were to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiffs shall file

their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the FAC no later than seven days after the Court’s order.

27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE;
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

1

Dated: September 29, 2016

2
3
4

STEPHEN P. BERZON
EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH
PEDER J. V. THOREEN
MEREDITH A. JOHNSON
REBECCA C. LEE
Altshuler Berzon LLP
ROBERT J. BEZEMEK
DAVID CONWAY
Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek

5
6
7

By:

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

s/ Eileen B. Goldsmith j
Eileen B. Goldsmith

Dated: September 29, 2016

KENNETH E. KELLER
THOMAS H. SLOAN, JR.
JENNIFER R. McGLONE
ETHAN I. JACOBS
Keller, Sloan, Roman & Holland LLP
LAURENCE W. KESSENICK
SCOTT C. KESSENICK
Kessenick, Gamma & Free LLP
By:

/s/ Thomas H. Sloan, Jr.
Thomas H. Sloan, Jr.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE;
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for

3

Leave to Amend is set for November 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

4
5
6

Dated: September 30, 2016

_____________________________________
United States District Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE;
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG