Mondragon et al v. Fernandez
Filing
64
STIPULATION AND ORDER 63 to Consolidate Matters for Trial and to Modify the Court's Scheduling Order. Jury Selection set for 9/12/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. Motion Hearing set for 7/29/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/13/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Adam Wang, Esq. (201233)
Adam Pedersen, Esq. (261901)
Law Offices of Adam Wang
12 South First Street, Suite 708
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: 408 421-3403
Facsimile: 408 416-0248
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALMA YADIRA
*E-FILED - 5/13/11*
Victoria L.H. Booke
Fahmy & Booke
606 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 286-7000
Fax: (408) 286-7111
Email: vbooke@gmail.com
Attorney for Defendant
JESUS FERNANDEZ
12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
17
YADIRA, et. al.;
18
19
CASE NUMBER: C 08 05721 RMW
RELATED CASE: C 08 05722 RMW
Plaintiffs,
v.
20
21
22
23
JOINT STIPULATION AND
---------------PROPOSED ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE
MATTERS FOR TRIAL AND TO
MODIFY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING
ORDER; and
JESUS FERNANDEZ dba MARIA’S
NIGHTCLUB; TONY’S POOL HALL
AND FLAMINGO NIGHTCLUB; DOES 110;
--------------[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Defendants,
24
25
26
27
1. WHEREAS, the above captioned cases cases, Yadira v. Fernandez, C 08 05721 RMW,
and , Mondragon v, Fernandez, C 08 05722 RMW were filed at the same time.
28
Yadira, et al./Mondragon v. Fernandez; C08 05721RMW and C08 05722RMW
--------Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order
1
1
2. WHEREAS, Both cases involve the same Defendants, contain the same allegations and
2
are based on largely the same facts. Parties in both cases are represented by the same
3
counsel. However, the issues in the case diverge in that in the YADIRA action the
4
Plaintiffs are hourly employees, and in the other related matter, the Plaintiff is a salaried
5
and alleged managerial employee.
6
7
3. WHEREAS, Parties are nearing their date for trial and are working to complete the
discovery process.
8
9
4. WHEREAS, Parties still have several key issues to work through in regard to the
10
completion of discovery including but not limited to two pending motions to compel,
11
ongoing meet and confer efforts and several pending subpoenas for third-party
12
documents.
13
14
5. WHEREAS, Plaintiff has concluded the deposition of Defendant Defendant has
15
16
17
18
completed depositions of the Plaintiff of both actions.
6. WHEREAS, the current discovery cut-off in this action is May, 2 2011.
7. WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a Motion For Summary Judgment which in part seeks
19
clarification of specific legal issues, including applicable statutes of limitations, the
20
resolution of which could both define the scope of discovery subject to dispute and guide
21
22
23
parties settlement discussions.
8.
WHEREAS, parties are willing to continue informal efforts to both complete discovery
24
and move toward settlement while they await the Court's decision on these legal points.
25
9. WHEREAS, the parties also seek to resolve as many issues as possible prior to the trial
26
of these actions.
27
28
Yadira, et al./Mondragon v. Fernandez; C08 05721RMW and C08 05722RMW
-------Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10. WHEREAS, the facts revealed by both written discovery and depositions currently
underway have begun to substantially narrow the issues in this case.
11. WHEREAS, despite the ongoing dispute, parties are resolute that some if not all of these
cases may be resolve by mediation.
12. WHEREAS, parties have not yet had an opportunity to mediate at all the Yadira matter,
either by private or court-sponsored mediation.
13. WHEREAS, the parties feel that if time can be given to address these legal and factual
issues, settlement of this matter can be had.
14. WHEREAS, Parties agree a conference with a magistrate judge would greatly aid them
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
in this regard and to that end would like to request the Court's aid by way of settlement
conference.
15. WHEREAS, because of the commonality of the facts, relationship between the parties
and because the Defendant in both actions is the same, the parties are further in
agreement that these matters should be consolidated for the purposes of trial in order that
they be resolved in the most effective manner possible.
16. WHEREAS, the current schedule in both of these matters does not allow for this occur
under the current case scheduling order;
17. THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE to the following:
22
23
1.
That the hearing on Plaintiffs pending motions to compel be continued from their
24
current date from 5/17/2011 hearing to 6/7/20111, pending this Court's resolution of
25
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the Yadira matter, which parties intend to
26
have re-noticed for hearing on 6/3/2011, currently set for hearing on 5/20/2011.
27
28
1 Plaintiffs' counsel has already re-noticed the pending motions to compel to conform
herewith.
Yadira, et al./Mondragon v. Fernandez; C08 05721RMW and C08 05722RMW
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order
--------3
2. That the parties agree to conduct a private mediation session in front of a mutually
1
2
agreeable neutral at some point following the Court's resolution of Plaintiff's motion
3
for summary, with mediation currently set for June 27, 2011.
4
3. That the matters be consolidated for the purposes of trial.
5
4.
6
That the consolidated trial of both matters be conducted, per the availability of the
7
Court, beginning on September 12, 2011 and that the previously calendared dates of
8
June 27, 2011 (08-5721 – the Yadira matter) and June 20, 2011 (08-5721 – the
9
Mondragon matter) be taken off-calendar.
10
5. That a single pre-trial conference now be held for the consolidated matters on August
11
25 2011, and that the previous conferences set for June 9, 2011 be taken off-calendar.
18,
12
13
6. That the current discovery cut-off be extended until July 15, 2011.
14
7. That the deadline for hearing of dispositive motions in only the Mondragon matter be
15
extended until July 29, 2011, and in the Yadira matter that the deadline to hear
16
dispositive motions be set for 6/3/2011, to allow parties to re-notice the current
17
motion in order to accommodate the schedule of counsel.
18
8. That parties, should they not be able resolve the matter on their own through
19
20
the parties are to have a settlement conference with Magistrate conduct of
mediation, respectfully request referral to magistrate Howard Lloyd for theJudge
21
a settlement to the pretrial conference.
Lloyd prior conference prior to trial.
22
9. That, the Court's schedule permitting, this conference shall occur prior to the conduct
23
of the parties pre-trial conference on August 25 2011.
18,
24
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
Yadira, et al./Mondragon v. Fernandez; C08 05721RMW and C08 05722RMW
--------Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order
4
1
Dated: Apr 25, 2011
2
3
4
_/s/Adam Pedersen___________
Adam Pedersen, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
6
7
Dated: Apr 25, 2011
8
__/s/Victoria Booke_____________
Victoria Booke, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
9
10
11
12
----------------[PROPOSED] ORDER
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Good cause appearing, pursuant to the parties stipulation, the above modification to the
scheduling order is adopted, and the dates set forth in the parties agreement shall control from
here forward. Furthermore, this Court hereby grants the parties' request to consolidate the two
matters referenced therein, case number C08-5721 and case number C08-5722, for the purposes
of trial.
20
21
22
23
24
5/13
Dated: ____________________, 2011
__________________________
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
US District Court Judge
25
26
27
28
Yadira, et al./Mondragon v. Fernandez; C08 05721RMW and C08 05722RMW
Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order
-------5
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?