Solorio v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc.

1 Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 PRISCILLA SOLORIO and MARIANO Case No.: 1:20-CV-01051-NONE-JLT DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others 13 similarly situated, STIPULATION GRANTING LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO 14 Plaintiffs, REPLY EVIDENCE AND/OR SURREPLY v. TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 15 ARBITRATION, DISMISS CLASS 16 A INB CC .; P aH ndO DN OE ES SO 1F - 1N 0O 0,R iT ncH lu C siA veR ,O LINA, A [PL RL OE PG OA ST EI DO ]N OS R, A DN ERD STAY ACTION; 17 Defendants. (Doc. 11)

1 Plaintiffs Priscilla Solorio and Mariano Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting wage and hour claims with respect to Store Managers at Defendant’s retail locations.

2. Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the “Motion”) on November 25, 2020 (ECF 7).

3. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion on January 13, 2021 (ECF 8), and Defendant filed its reply on January 20, 2021 (ECF 10).

4. Plaintiffs have prepared the Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the “Objection/Surreply”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, to object to and address issues raised in Defendant’s reply and related filings.

5. Plaintiffs provided the Objection/Surreply to Defendant’s counsel, and based on the circumstances and without conceding the validity of any of the issues raises therein, Defendant has agreed to stipulate to its filing.

6. The Local Rules and the Federal Rules do not provide the right to file a surreply or objections to reply evidence, but a district court may allow a surreply to be filed “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists.” Hartline v. Nat'l Univ., No. 2:14-CV-0635 KJM AC PS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8127, at *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015).

Accordingly, counsel for the Parties agree that good cause exists and leave for Plaintiffs to file the Objection/Surreply should be granted, and respectfully request that the Court issue an order that the Objection/Surreply is deemed filed. // // 28 -1- IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted, Date: January 22, 2021 /s/ Scott L. Gordon 6 Carolyn H. Cottrell 7 David C. Leimbach Scott L. Gordon 8 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Date: January 22, 2021 13 /s/ Robert L. Shipley Robert L. Shipley 14 Brandon S. Gray ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC

16 Attorneys for Defendant

28 -2- 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action, filed at ECF 11-1, is deemed filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 -3-