Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc.

Filing 24

REVISED 23 ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion to Intervene. On or before 6/7/2010,Intervenor Plaintiffs shall filed their Complaint in Intervention. Joint Case Management Statement due by 6/18/2010. Case Management Conference set for 6/28/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge James Ware on 5/27/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 10-00152 JW REVISED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc., Defendant. /

Presently before the Court is Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Intervene.1 The Court finds it appropriate to take the matter under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Plaintiff and Defendant have both filed Statements of Non-Opposition. (See Docket Item Nos. 10, 21.) Intervenor Plaintiffs seek to intervene in this action to bring federal and state law claims against Defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, "[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute." When the EEOC brings a civil action against an employer under Title VII, federal law provides that "the charging party [i.e., the aggrieved employee] may intervene as a matter of right." E.E.O.C. v. Federal Exp. Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 849 (9th Cir. 2009). In determining timeliness under Rule 24, a court should consider "(1) the stage of the proceeding; (2) prejudice to other parties; and (3) the (hereafter, "Motion," Docket Item No. 9.) Intervenor Plaintiffs are Maria Dolores Perez, Manuel Soto, Juanita Velasquez, and Maria Isabel Lucio.
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

reason for and the length of the delay." Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir. 1978). In this case, Intervenor Plaintiffs are the charging parties in the EEOC's Complaint. (See Complaint ¶ 8.) As the charging parties, they have a right to intervene under Title VII if their Motion is timely. Intervenor Plaintiffs filed their Motion on March 10, 2010, approximately two months after the Complaint was filed. No discovery schedule has been set in this case, and it appears that Defendant would not suffer prejudice if the Court granted the Motion. In light of the early stage of the proceedings and the lack of prejudice to Defendant, the Court finds that Intervenor Plaintiffs may intervene in this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion. On or before June 7, 2010, Intervenor Plaintiffs shall filed their Complaint in Intervention. In light of this Order, the Court CONTINUES the Case Management Conference currently set for June 7, 2010 to June 28, 2010 at 10 a.m. provide all parties sufficient time to meet and confer. On or before June 18, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement. The Statement shall include, among other things, a good faith discovery schedule with a proposed date for the close of all discovery.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: May 27, 2010

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Debra A. Smith [e-mail] Jack C. Provine [e-mail] Jonathan T. Peck [e-mail] Lisa Janine Cisneros [e-mail] Michael L. Meuter [e-mail] Rhonda Darlene Shelton-Kraeber [e-mail] William Robert Tamayo [e-mail] Dated: May 27, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28