Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp. ( 2020 )

1 J. Scott Carr (SBN 136706) scarr@kcozlaw.com 2 Abigail Stecker Romero (SBN 284534) aromero@kcozlaw.com 3 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 4 333 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 5 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 6 Attorneys for Defendant HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO 7 (erroneously sued as both “Hyatt Corporation” and “Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency 8 Sacramento) 9 Galen T. Shimoda (SBN 226752) attorney@shimodalaw.com 10 Justin P. Rodriguez (SBN 278275) jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com 11 Brittany V. Berzin (SBN 325121) bberzin@shimodalaw.com. 12 Shimoda Law Corp. 13 9401 E. Stockton Blvd., Suite 120, Elk Grove, CA 95624 14 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Janice Insixiengmay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 16 situated 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, individually and Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB on behalf of all others similarly situated, 21 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 22 STAY DISCOVERY DUE TO COVID-19 vs. PANDEMIC 23 HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware 24 Corporation; HYATT CORPORATION 25 DBA HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO, an unknown association; and 26 DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, 27 Defendants. Complaint Removed: Nov. 15, 2018 28 1 Defendant Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency Sacramento (“Hyatt”) and Plaintiff 2 Janice Insixiengmay (“Plaintiff”) hereby stipulate to a stay of the discovery period for 3 approximately 90 days in light of the unique and unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 4 pandemic, and state as follows: 5 STIPULATION 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant in the 7 Sacramento Superior Court on October 4, 2018 (D.E. 1-1); 8 WHEREAS, Defendant timely removed this action to this Court on November 15, 2018 9 (D.E. 1); 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiff moved to remand this action back to Sacramento Superior Court on 11 December 13, 2018 (D.E. 4); 12 WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization classified the virus 13 outbreak commonly known as “Coronavirus” or “COVID-19” as a pandemic;1 14 WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, this Court recognized the COVID-19 virus outbreak in 15 General Order No. 610; 16 WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a “stay at home order” 17 to slow the spread of COVID-19;2 18 WHEREAS, this Court recognized the increasing severity of the COVID-19 pandemic on 19 March 17, 2020 (General Order 611), March 18, 2020 (General Order 612), March 25, 2020 20 (General Order 613), and March 30, 2020 (General Order 614); 21 WHEREAS, this Court denied Plaintiff’s remand motion on March 27, 2020 and ordered 22 the Parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and submit a scheduling report no later than April 23 29, 2020 (D.E. 17); 24 1 See Basank v. Decker, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 1481503, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“On 25 March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (‘WHO’) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.”). 26 2 See General Order 611 (Mar. 17, 2020) (“the Governor of the State of California has declared a 27 public health emergency throughout the State in response to the spread of COVID-19, and 28 strongly encouraged certain segments of the population to remain at home at the current time”). 1 WHEREAS, on April 1, 2020, the Parties conducted a Rule 26(f) conference; 2 WHEREAS, during the Rule 26(f) conference, the Parties discussed the specific and 3 severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hyatt’s operations, including that: (1) the Hyatt 4 Regency Sacramento Hotel where Plaintiff was employed is currently closed and will be closed 5 at least through May 15, 2020 and potentially longer; and (2) Hyatt’s corporate operations have 6 been drastically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; 7 WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic is causing an extreme and undue hardship on 8 Hyatt and will make it exceedingly difficult for Hyatt to further investigate Plaintiff’s claims, 9 prepare written discovery, prepare initial disclosures, respond to written discovery and identify 10 and gather documents for production, and/or produce witnesses for deposition in the foreseeable 11 future; 12 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a stay of the discovery period for 90 days is reasonably 13 necessary given the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; 14 WHEREAS, the Parties have not requested any prior stays or extensions in this action; 15 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate to a 90-day stay of the discovery period 16 through and including July 2, 2020, subject to this Court’s approval. The Parties further stipulate 17 to provide the Court a status update by June 26, 2020 regarding whether they believe a further 18 stay is necessary and, if not, a proposed scheduling order. 19 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 20 Dated: April 6, 2020 By: /s/ Abigail Stecker Romero J. Scott Carr 21 Abigail Stecker Romero 22 Attorneys for Defendant 23 SHIMODA LAW CORP. 24 Dated: April 6, 2020 By: /s/ Justin P. Rodríguez (as authorized on April 25 6, 2020) 26 Galen T. Shimoda Justin P. Rodríguez 27 Brittany V. Berzin 28 1 ORDER 2 The COURT, having considered the above stipulation, HEREBY ORDERS that: 3 1. Discovery is stayed for 90 days, through and including July 2, 2020; and 4 2. The Parties must submit to the Court a report no later than June 26, 2020 5 regarding whether any further stay of discovery is necessary and, if not, a proposed scheduling 6 order. 7 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: April 7, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28