Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yadira (08-5721); Mondragon (08-5722); 10 v. Jesus Fernandez Dba Maria's Nightclub; Tony's Pool Hall and Flamingo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


August 12, 2011

YADIRA (08-5721); MONDRAGON (08-5722); 10;
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JESUS FERNANDEZ DBA MARIA'S NIGHTCLUB; TONY'S POOL HALL AND FLAMINGO NIGHTCLUB; DOES 1-
DEFENDANTS,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

Adam Wang, Esq. (201233) Adam Pedersen, Esq. (261901) Law Offices of Adam Wang 12 South First Street, Suite 708 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408 421-3403 Facsimile: 408 416-0248 Attorneys for Plaintiff ALMA YADIRA

*E-FILED - 8/12/11*

JOINT STIPULATION TO RESET TRIAL DATE; and [] ORDER

Parties, by way of this stipulation, respectfully request the Court reset the current dates for the pre-trial conference and trial. This request, detailed below is based largely on the 26 27 unavailability of the Defendants, the schedules of counsel and the need to conduct the mandatory 28 settlement conference prior to the conduct of trial. Discovery is currently closed, and all dispositive motions, except for the parties' pending motions for reconsideration, have been filed 2 and heard by the Court. Parties do not seek any modification of these dates or deadlines, only 3 those that pertain to trial.

This two subject cases, Yadira v. Fernandez, C 08 05721 RMW and Mondragon v, Fernandez, C 08 05722 RMW, were filed at the same time and both cases involve the same Defendants, contain the same allegations and are based on largely the same facts. Parties in both 8 cases are represented by the same counsel. However, the issues in the case diverge in that in the 9 instant action the Plaintiffs are hourly employees, and in the other related matter, the Plaintiffs 10 are alleged salaried employees. For those reasons the matters have been consolidated for 11 12 purposes of trial.

Parties conducted a private mediation in front of mediator Jeffrey Owensby, Esq. While some progress was made, parties were unable to settle either of the pending matters. Parties have 15 yet to conduct the mandatory settlement conference because they first desired to try private 16 mediation, preferring to leave the settlement conference as a last resort. While the mediation was 17 18 ultimately unsuccessful, counsel for parties has conferred in person and do feel that some type of 19 settlement or narrowing of issues is possible by way of further ADR. Due to scheduling conflicts and the schedule of the Court, the parties will not be able to conduct this conference until September or October of 2011. As such, given the current trial 22 23 schedule the conference would not be able to be held prior to trial. Further, Defendants will be out of the Country during the month of August, hindering the ability of counsel to prepare the 25 matter for trial in September.

Therefore, the parties agree that the trial date should be moved to accommodate these needs. Doing so will allow for the most efficient resolution possible. Parties propose the following new dates for the pre-trial conference and trial, pending Court availability and approval:

TRIAL SCHEDULE

1. Pre-Trial Conference: 12/1/2011 at 2:00 PM

2. Trial: starting Monday, 12/12/2011;

3. The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: Five (5) court days.

SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES AND LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL

The above modification to the scheduling order is adopted, and the dates set in this Scheduling Order shall control.

Dated: August ______, 2011

20110812

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.