Sanchez v. Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 KEVIN MAHONEY, ESQ. (SBN: 235367) kmahoney@mahoney-law.net 2 KATHERINE J. ODENBREIT, ESQ. (SBN: 184619) 3 kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net ALEXANDER PEREZ, ESQ. (SBN: 304675) 4 aperez@mahoney-law.net 5 MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 6 Long Beach, CA 90802 7 Telephone No.: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile No.:(562) 590-8400 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff GREGORIO SANCHEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, 10 MARIA Z. STERNS (SBN: 230649) 11 mstearns@rutan.com PETER HERING (SBN: 298427) 12 phering@rutan.com 13 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 14 Costa Mesa, California 92626 15 Telephone: (714) 641-5100 Facsimile: (714) 546-9035 16 17 Attorneys for Defendant ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 GREGORIO SANCHEZ, as an Case No. 1:19−cv−00718−LJO−JLT individual, and on behalf of all similarly 21 situated employees, JOINT STIPULATION SEEKING 22 AN ORDER (1) DISMISSING Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL 23 v. CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 24 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL CLASS CLAIMS WITHOUT SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 25 PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] 50, inclusive, ORDER 26 Defendant. (Doc. 15) 27 1 1. Plaintiff GREGORIO SANCHEZ (referred herein as “Plaintiff”) and 2 Defendant ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. (referred herein as 3 (Defendant”) (Plaintiff and Defendant are jointly referred herein as the “Parties”), 4 by and through their attorneys of record herein, submit the following Joint 5 Stipulation for an Order (1) Dismissing Plaintiff’s Individual Claims With Prejudice, 6 and (2) Dismissing Plaintiff’s Class Claims Without Prejudice. 7 2. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Kern 8 County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-19-100819, alleging various wage-and-hour 9 claims (the “Complaint”). Defendant denies all of Plaintiff’s claims. 10 3. On May 22, 2019, Defendant removed the case to Federal District Court 11 for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-00718-LJO-JLT. 12 4. On June 26, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims 13 asserted in the Complaint arguing that the claims are preempted under the Federal 14 Labor Management Relations Act (the “Motion”). 15 5. On July 10, 2019, the Parties entered into a stipulation to extend 16 Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose Defendant’s Motion. As part of the stipulation, 17 Plaintiff agreed to dismiss his class allegations without prejudice and pursue his 18 individual claims only. 19 6. On August 16, 2019, the Parties reached a settlement in principle to 20 resolve Plaintiff’s individual claims, with prejudice, with a dismissal of the class 21 claims without prejudice. The parties have now finalized their settlement. 22 7. Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his individual claims against Defendant, 23 for consideration, with prejudice. 24 8. No payment is being made in connection with the settlement as 25 consideration for the dismissal of the class claims. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 9. No notice need be provided to the putative class, as no class action has 2 been certified, there have been no published or court-ordered communications with 3 the class, and no prejudice results from the dismissal of the class claims. 4 10. The filer attests on the signature page of this document that all other 5 signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s 6 content and have authorized the filing. 7 8 BASED ON THESE FACTS, the Parties stipulate as follows: 9 1. Plaintiff’s individual claims shall be dismissed with prejudice; 10 2. Plaintiff’s class claims shall be dismissed without prejudice; 11 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 12 13 14 Dated: October 29, 2019 MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 15 16 /s/ Alexander Perez Kevin Mahoney, Esq. 17 Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. 18 Alexander Perez, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff GREGORIO 19 SANCHEZ and on behalf of all employees 20 similarly situated 21 Dated: October 29, 2019 Rutan & Tucker, LLP 22 23 /s/ Peter Hering 24 Peter Hering, Esq. 25 Maria Z. Stearns, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Advanced Industrial 26 Services, Inc. 27 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The parties have settled their case and have stipulated to the action being dismissed with 3 prejudice as to the individual claims and without prejudice to the class. (Doc. 15) Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations effective immediately with further order of the 5 Court. Because all parties who have appeared in the action signed the stipulation, it “automatically 6 terminate[d] the action.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 7 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 29, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27