Ramirez et al v. Milgard Manufacturing Inc.

Filing 46

STIPULATION AND ORDER 45 Regarding Summary Judgment Issues.Case Management Conference set for 2/27/2009 10:30 AM. Joint Case Management Statement due 2/20/2009. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/21/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2009)

Download PDF
1 Stan S. Mallison (SBN 184191) Hector R. Martinez (SBN 206336) 2 LAW OFFICES OF MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1042 Brown Avenue 3 Lafayette, CA 94549 Telephone: (925) 283-3842 4 Facsimilie: (925) 283-3426 StanM@MallisonLaw.com 5 HectorM@MallisonLaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees 7 Stephen C. Tedesco (SBN 130325) LITTLER MENDELSON 8 A Professional Corporation 650 California Street 9 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 10 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 11 E-mail: stedesco@littler.com 12 Attorneys for Defendant Milgard Manufacturing, Inc. 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C07-02408 RMW (ECF) STIPULATION REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ISSUES & [] ORDER *E-FILED - 1/21/09* 17 JOSE FERNANDO RAMIREZ, EVARARDO MONTEJANO, and SERGIO JACOBO on 18 behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, 19 20 21 vs. Plaintiffs, 22 MILGARD MANUFACTURING INC., 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. __________________________________________1_____________________________________________________ Stipulation and Order ­ Case No. C07-02408 RMW (ECF) 1 2 STIPULATED REQUEST Plaintiffs Jose Fernando Ramirez, Evarado Montejano and Sergio Jacobo, through their 3 attorneys of record, and Defendant Milgard Manufacturing, Inc., through its attorneys of record, hereby 4 submit the following stipulation in regards to the parties' previous request to file motions for partial 5 summary judgment. 6 At the last Case Management Conference, the parties discussed the notion of filing motions for The primary issues in this case concern 7 summary judgment regarding certain issues in this case. 8 Defendant's obligations with regard to rest and meal periods. Although there are other issues in the 9 case, the rest and meal period obligations under California law are a key focus and constitute a large 10 portion of the potential damages in the case under Plaintiffs' theories. However, on July 22, 2008, the 11 California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San 12 Diego County, 165 Cal. App. 25 (2008). On August 28, 2008, a petition for review by the California 13 Supreme Court was filed by the plaintiffs in that case. The Supreme Court generally has 60 days, or 14 until October 27, 2008, to consider this petition. Cal. R. Ct. 8.512. The Supreme Court has discretion 15 to extend this period by 30 days to November 26, 2008. Id. 16 The parties have earnestly pursued the summary judgment path as a means of pursing judicial 17 efficiency, but believe that there can be no meaningful summary judgment proposal until the California 18 Supreme Court decides whether to grant review of the Brinker decision. Plaintiffs believe that review 19 of Brinker is likely as the Supreme Court has already accepted review in the case, prior to the Appellate 20 Court's request to revise its decision. Defendant does not support Plaintiffs' analysis, particularly 21 because Defendant believes that the Court did not previously accept review on the merits, but instead 22 only accepted review at the request of the Court of Appeal to transfer the case back, and because 23 Defendant believes that Brinker is consistent with other authorities on these issues. Regardless, if the 24 California Supreme Court accepts review of Brinker, it is likely that the parties will attempt to resolve 25 this case by mediation or make other procedural requests and summary judgment proceedings may not 26 be required. If the California Supreme Court does not accept review of Brinker, Plaintiffs will request 27 28 __________________________________________2_____________________________________________________ Stipulation and Order ­ Case No. C07-02408 RMW (ECF) 1 leave to amend their Complaint. In either case, summary judgment on these issues would not be 2 efficient at this time. 3 The parties further request that the Court schedule a case management conference for a date 4 after November 26, 2008 to consider how this case should proceed. 5 6 7 Dated: September 11, 2008 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: September 11, 2008 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 __________________________________________3_____________________________________________________ Stipulation and Order ­ Case No. C07-02408 RMW (ECF) IT IS SO STIPULATED: LAW OFFICES OF MALLISON & MARTINEZ By: /s/ Stan Mallison Stan S. Mallison Attorneys for Plaintiffs LITTLER MENDELSON, PC By: /s/ Stephen Tedesco Stephen C. Tedesco Attorneys for Defendants [] ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED: The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, the deadline to submit issues for summary judgment or summary adjudication is hereby vacated without prejudice. A further case February 27 management conference will be held on _________________, 2009. at 10:30 a.m. Parties shall file a revised Case Management Statement by 2/20/09. Dated: 1/21/09 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

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?