Whiteside v. SPSG Partners

1 Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752) Justin P. Rodriguez (Cal. State Bar No. 278275) Brittany V. Berzin (Cal. State Bar No. 325121) Renald Konini (Cal. State Bar No. 312080) Jessica L. Hart (Cal. State Bar No. 331441) Shimoda Law Corp. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff STEPHON WHITESIDE individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHON WHITESIDE, individually and on Case No.: 2:20-cv-01643-TLN-DMC behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Hon. Troy L. Nunley Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 16 EXTEND TIME FOR INITIAL vs. DISCLOSURE AND REQUIREMENTS 17 OF FRCP, RULE 26(A)(1) AND (F) AND SPSG PARTNERS, an Unincorporated Joint REQUEST TO VACATE THE COURT’S Venture; SPSG PARTNERS, LLC, a INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING California Limited Liability Company; ORDER PENDING THIS COURT’S SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC., a ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO California Corporation; SUKUT REMAND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; GOODFELLOWS BROS. CALIFORNIA, Complaint Filed: Jan. 13, 2020 LLC., a California Limited Liability Removed to Fed. Court: Aug. 14, 2020 Company; PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants.

1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3 Plaintiff STEPHON WHITESIDE (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants SPSG PARTNERS; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC.; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, LLC; GOODFELLOW BROS. CALIFORNIA, LLC; and PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC. (“Defendants”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) hereby submit this joint stipulation to extend time for initial disclosure and requirements of FRCP, Rule 26(A)(1) and (F) and request to vacate the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order pending an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and state as follows: 10 STIPULATION 11 1. WHEREAS, Defendants removed this PAGA action from Butte County Superior Court on August 14, 2020. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1); 13 2. WHEREAS, the Court issued an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on August 14, 2020. (D.E. 2); 15 3. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this action back to state court on September 11, 2020. (D.E. 5); 17 4. WHEREAS, the Motion to Remand was fully briefed on October 7, 2020. (D.E.

18 10); 19 5. WHEREAS, on October 12, 2020, during the Rule 26(f) conference, the Parties agreed after thoughtful consideration that, given the pending Motion to Remand and considering judicial and party efficiency, it was best to request that the deadlines in the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order be vacated, pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to determine the threshold issue of removal. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction”); Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-431 (2007) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause; it may not assume jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits of the case”); 1 6. WHEREAS, the Parties further agree that postponing the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) and (f) until Plaintiff’s challenge to jurisdiction has been resolved will facilitate to the mutual goal of the Parties to minimize attorneys’ fees; 4 7. WHEREAS, the Parties agree and propose to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f); 8 8. This extension is the first extension sought regarding the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) and (f); 10 9. The extension is not sought for any improper purpose or to delay and will not result in prejudice to either party; 12 10. If the Court is not inclined to vacate the deadlines in the Order pending a ruling on the Motion to Remand, the Parties will promptly submit requested scheduling dates and a full Joint Statement of the case; 15 11. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f) and request that the Court vacate the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order until the Court issues an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, subject to this Court’s approval.

22 Dated: October 13, 2020 SHIMODA LAW CORP. 24 By: _/s/ Galen T. Shimoda_______ Galen T. Shimoda 25 Justin P. Rodriguez Brittany V. Berzin Renald Konini 27 Jessica L. Hart Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: October 13, 2020 ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO By: __/s/ Mia A. Lomedico____________ Scott K. Dauscher 7 Mia A. Lomedico Attorneys for Defendants

1 ORDER 2 The COURT, having considered the above stipulation, HEREBY ORDERS that: 3 1. That the deadlines set forth in this Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order are vacated; 4 and 5 2. The Parties shall confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s 6 order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by 7 Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report 8 pursuant to Rule 26(f).

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2020