Synoracki v. Alaska Airlines Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL 8 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND 9 v. ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., et al., TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS 11 Defendants. CERTIFICATION

I. INTRODUCTION The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, jointly submit this stipulated motion to extend Defendants’ deadline to file their response (the “Response”) to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. No. 40) (the “Motion”), currently due April 27, 2020, by 14 days to May 11, 2020 and for Plaintiff’s Motion, currently noted for May 1, 2020, to be noted for consideration on May 15, 2020. Good cause exists for this extension because Defendants are currently reviewing Plaintiff’s putative classes and proposed class definitions along with accompanying materials, and additional time may be helpful in narrowing the scope of disputed issues to be addressed in Defendants’ Response.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS In this civil class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes of pilots employed by Defendants who allegedly did not accrue vacation or sick time while on periods of military leave.

3 This case was filed in December 2018. Trial is set for December 7, 2020. Plaintiff filed the Motion on April 7, 2020, which is noted for a hearing on May 1, 2020. Defendants’ Response is currently due April 27, 2020.

6 III. ARGUMENT 7 The Court may extend a party’s deadline to respond to a motion where good cause exists.

8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(a); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[R]equests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

12 The parties stipulate that good cause exists to extend Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion by 14 days because Defendants are currently reviewing Plaintiff’s putative classes and proposed class definitions along with accompanying materials, and additional time may be helpful in narrowing the scope of disputed issues to be addressed in Defendants’ Response.

16 (See Dkt. No. 40 at 4.) Specifically, Defendants and Plaintiff have been in communication to determine the scope of disputed issues regarding Plaintiff’s proposed putative classes and class definitions, and these discussions could potentially narrow the issues that will be addressed by Defendants’ Response and will need to be considered by this Court. Therefore, good cause exists for a short, two-week extension that will allow the parties additional time to discuss Plaintiff’s proposed class definitions.

22 This is the first request by the parties for an extension of time for Defendants to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully move the Court to extend Defendants’ time to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion from April 27, 2020 to May 11, 2020, and to notice Plaintiff’s Motion for May 15, 2020.

5 FOR DEFENDANTS: By: /s/ Mark W. Robertson Mark W. Robertson (admitted pro hac vice) Kathryn S. Rosen, WSBA #29465 (N.Y. Bar #4508248) Davis Wright Tremaine O’Melveny & Myers LLP 920 5th Avenue, Ste. 3300 7 Times Square Seattle, Washington 98104-1610 New York, New York 10036 Tel.: (206) 622-3150 Tel.: (212) 326-2000 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Fax: (212) 326-2061 [email protected] [email protected] Tristan Morales (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Defendants (D.C. Bar # 1011373) O’Melveny & Myers LLP 12 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 13 Tel.: (202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414 14 [email protected] FOR PLAINTIFF: By: /s/ Gene J. Stonebarger Gene J. Stonebarger(admitted Pro Hac Vice) Brian J. Lawler (admitted Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] [email protected] Crystal L. Matter (admitted Pro Hac Vice) PILOT LAW, P.C. [email protected] 850 Beech Street, Suite 713 STONEBARGER LAW San Diego, California 92101 Parkshore Drive Phone: 866.512.2465 Suite 100 Fax: 619.231.4984 Folsom, California 95630 Phone: 916.235.7140 Charles M. Billy (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Fax: 916.235.7141 [email protected] The Law Offices of Charles M. Billy, APC Daniel Kalish 22706 Aspan Street, Ste 305 [email protected] Lake Forest, CA 92630 HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP Phone: 949-357-9636 Stewart Street, Ste 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-838-2504 Counsel for Plaintiff(s) ORDER Based on the foregoing stipulation, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 40) is noted for hearing on May 15, 2020, and Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion, if any, shall be filed by May 11, 2020.

6 Dated this 24th day of April, 2020.

A The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 9 United States District Court Judge