Aguilar v. CSK Auto, Inc. et al

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Initial Case Management Conference previously set for 6/21/2018 has been continued to 7/19/2018 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor. Case Management Statement due 7/12/2018. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/7/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2018)

6

JAMES M. PETERSON, Bar No. 137837
[e-mail]
JASON C ROSS, Bar No. 252635
[e-mail]
EDWIN M. BONISKE, Bar No. 265701
[e-mail]
HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West “A” Street, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101-7913
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619.696.1410

7

Attorneys for Defendants

8

15

AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
Randall B. Aiman-Smith #124599
Reed W.L. Marcy #191531
Hallie Von Rock #233152
Carey A. James #269270
Brent A. Robinson #289373
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
Oakland, CA 94621
T: 510.817.2711
F: 510.562.6830
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

9
10
11
12
13
14

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

ADRIAN AGUILAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

21

Plaintiffs,

22

v.

23

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04263-RS
ORDER

STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
PLEADING

CSK AUTO, INC., O’REILLY
AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,

24
25

Defendants.

26
27

///

28
8496701.1

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04263-RS
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND

1

Plaintiff ADRIAN AGUILAR (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants CSK AUTO, INC., now

2

known as O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, and O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC.

3

(collectively, “O’Reilly”) (Plaintiff and O’Reilly together, the “Parties”), by and though their

4

undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

5

I.

6

RECITALS

7

1.

This action was commenced on July 27, 2017. (Doc. 1.)

8

2.

As per the Court’s September 29, 2017 Order (Doc. 16), this action was initially

9

stayed pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation in light of an earlier-filed, overlapping putative class

10

action entitled Davidson v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-RGK-AJW

11

(“Davidson”).1 As set forth in that stipulation, the Parties agreed to stay this matter pending a

12

ruling on class certification in Davidson, and that O’Reilly would be required to answer or

13

otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s complaint in this action 30 days after a ruling on that motion in

14

Davidson. (Doc. 15.)
3.

15

On December 15, 2017, the Davidson Court entered an order denying class

16

certification. (Davidson, Doc. No. 62.) However, the plaintiff in Davidson then filed a Rule

17

23(f) petition with Ninth Circuit seeking to immediately appeal the denial of her motion for class

18

certification. As such, the Parties agreed to extend the stay of this Action pending the Ninth

19

Circuit’s resolution of the Rule 23(f) petition in Davidson. The Court granted the Parties’

20

stipulation, ordering that the stay be extended for another 90 days, setting a status conference on

21

April 12, 2018, and that O’Reilly answer or otherwise respond to the operative pleading in this

22

case within 30 days of a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Davidson. (Doc. 19.)
4.

23

The Ninth Circuit denied the Davidson plaintiff’s Rule 23(f) petition on

24

March 27, 2018. Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s prior Order, the stay was lifted and

25

O’Reilly’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint was triggered.

26

///

27
28

1

Davidson was filed on March 29, 2017, and is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
8496701.1

2

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04263-RS
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND

5.

1

This is the Parties’ second request to continue the deadline for O’Reilly to respond

2

to the Complaint after the stay has been lifted. The Parties previously filed a stipulation on

3

April 10, 2018 asking that the Court continue the deadline so the Parties could complete ongoing

4

meet and confer discussions regarding the continuing potential overlap as between this action and

5

two other previously-filed class and representative actions (including Davidson). (Doc. 20.) The

6

Court granted the Parties stipulation, re-set the initial case management conference to

7

June 21, 2018, and continued O’Reilly’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the

8

Complaint to May 10, 2018. (Doc. 21.)
6.

9

Since that time, the Parties have been meeting and conferring regarding the class

10

and representative claims in this action; the overlap or potential overlap of those claims with

11

other, first-filed actions; and the potential for resolution on an individual basis. The outcome of

12

these discussions will affect the Parties’ determinations on the most efficient method to litigate

13

the present Action. Additionally, these discussions will impact the nature and scope of O’Reilly’s

14

response to the Complaint in this Action because O’Reilly anticipates moving to stay or dismiss

15

at least portions of the complaint absent an agreement between the Parties on an alternative

16

course of action.

17

7.

Significantly, although the Court denied class certification in the Davidson action,

18

the plaintiff in that case also asserts a PAGA claim, which O’Reilly contends duplicates (and pre-

19

dates) the PAGA claim asserted in this Action. O’Reilly is currently in the process of moving for

20

summary judgment on the PAGA claim in the Davidson action, which is scheduled to be filed on

21

May 7, and which the Parties anticipate will be heard on or around June 4, 2018. The ruling on

22

that motion could have a significant impact on this case, and will direct the nature and scope of

23

O’Reilly’s response to the Complaint in this Action.
8.

24

In light of the above, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed that, in the

25

interests of judicial efficiency and economy, and to avoid potentially duplicative and unnecessary

26

motion practice and litigation, O’Reilly’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the

27

complaint should be continued for an additional 45 days (to June 25, 2018), which the Parties

28

believe will provide sufficient time to obtain a ruling on the motion in Davidson, complete their
8496701.1

3

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04263-RS
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND

1

ongoing discussions, and prepare/file an appropriate responsive pleading or motion. The Parties

2

further request that the Court continue the June 21, 2018 Initial Case Management Conference

3

such that it will occur shortly after the deadline for O’Reilly to respond to the complaint (to

4

July 19, 2018, or a date convenient to the Court). The Parties anticipate and believe this will be

5

their final request to continue the deadline and Initial Case Management Conference.

6

II.

7

STIPULATION
Based on the above recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff and

8
9

O’Reilly hereby stipulate and agree, and jointly request that the Court order, as follows:
1.

10
11

be continued for a period of 45 days (to June 25, 2018).
2.

12
13

That O’Reilly’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the operative pleading

That the June 21, 2018 Initial Case Management Conference be vacated and re-set

for July 19, 2018 (or a date convenient for the Court).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14
15
16

DATED: May 7, 2018

HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP

17

19

By: /s/ Edwin M. Boniske
JAMES M. PETERSON
JASON C. ROSS
EDWIN M. BONISKE

20

Attorney for Defendants

18

21

DATED: May 7, 2018

AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY

22

S

ic
Judge R

H

ER

Dated: 5/7/18

N

Attorney for Plaintiff

FO

RT

8496701.1

eborg

hard Se

NO

28

LI

27

D

TE
GRAN

A

26

UNIT
ED

25

RT
U
O

24

By: /s/ Carey A. James
RANDALL B. AIMAN-SMITH
REED W.L. MARCY
HALLIE VON ROCK
CAREY A. JAMES
BRENT A. ROBINSON

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

23

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

4

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04263-RS
STIPULATION AND JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND