UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 9, 2009
JOSE A. LOPEZ, JUAN CARLOS APOLINAR, JUAN JOSE ESTRADA SOTA, JUAN JOSE CERVANTES, ISMAEL CUEVAS, REYNAR MENDOZA AND JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, PLAINTIFFS,
LASSEN DAIRY, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS "MERITAGE DAIRY"), ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER RE: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RELATED DISCOVERY
On June 8, 2009, a scheduling conference was held. Stanley Mallison appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs. Olga Balderama appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendants.
I. Motions for Class Certification
This action seeks wages and compensation allegedly owed to Plaintiffs and potential class members under California and federal law. After discussions with counsel, the Court sets the following dates regarding filing deadlines for motions for class certification. Counsel are advised that after consulting the Court's calendar, the Court amended the date by which Plaintiffs must file a reply to any opposition to the motion for class certification, the date for the hearing on the motion before Judge O'Neill, as well as the status conference following the hearing on the motion for class certification. If counsel has a conflict with any of the amended dates, they shall contact Carrie Esteves immediately so that any necessary amendments can be made Class certification discovery deadline October 26, 2009;
Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than November 13, 2009; Defendants shall file their opposition no later than December 11, 2009;
Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief no later than January 15, 2010;
A hearing on the motion for class certification will be held before the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill in Courtroom 4 on February 17, 2010 at 8:30 am.
A status conference following a ruling on the any motion for class certification will be held on March 3, 2010 at 10:00 before the Honorable Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10.
II. Mandatory Settlement Conference
At this time, the parties have indicated that they may be participating in mediation. Therefore, the Court has not set a settlement conference. If the parties later desire a settlement conference, they may jointly request one by contacting Judge Austin's chambers.
If a settlement conference is set and unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the settlement conference with the parties and the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case, on any terms, at the conference.
No later than seven days prior to the settlement conference, each party shall submit directly to the settlement conference judge's chambers a confidential settlement conference statement. This statement should neither be filed with the clerk of the Court nor served on any other party but shall be sent to chamber's e-mail at email@example.com. Each statement shall be clearly marked "CONFIDENTIAL" with the date and time of the mandatory settlement conference indicated prominently. Counsel are urged to request the return of their statements. If such request is not made, the Court will dispose of the statement.
The confidential settlement conference statement shall include the following:
A. A brief statement of the facts of the case;
B. A brief statement of the claims and defenses (i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims or defenses are based), a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses, and a description of the major issues in dispute;
C. A summary of the proceedings to date;
D. An estimate of the cost and time to be expended for further pretrial and trial matters, including discovery;
E. The relief sought; and
F. The party's position on settlement, including the amount which or otherwise what the party will accept to settle, realistic settlement expectations, present demands and offers, and a history of past settlement discussions, offers, and demands.
This Court will vacate the settlement conference if the Court finds the settlement conference will be neither productive nor meaningful to attempt to resolve all or part of this case. As far in advance of the settlement conference as possible, a party shall inform the Court and other parties that it believes the case is not in a settlement posture so the Court may vacate or reset the settlement conference. Otherwise the parties shall proceed with the settlement conference in good faith to attempt to resolve all or part of the case.
III. Effect Of This Order
This order represents the best estimate of the Court and parties as to the agenda most suitable to resolve the class certification issues in this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, the parties are ordered to notify the Court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations with attached exhibits, where appropriate, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.