Houston v. RAC Acceptance West, LLC. ( 2020 )

1 GREGORY G. ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215 giskander @littler.com 2 NATALIE M. KUZMA, Bar No. 286401 nkuzma @littler.com 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 4 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 5 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Fax No.: 925.946.9809 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 RAC ACCEPTANCE WEST, LLC and ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC 8 MIRIAM L. SCHIMMEL, ESQ. SBN 185089 9 miriam @ gaineslawfirm.com DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 251488 10 daniel @ gaineslawfirm.com EVAN S. GAINES, ESQ. SBN 287668 11 evan @ gaineslawfirm.com GAINES & GAINES, APLC 12 27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 10 Calabasas, CA 91301 13 Telephone: (818) 703-8985 Facsimile: (808) 703-8984 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 ESEN HOUSTON 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 19 || ESEN HOUSTON, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01880-MCE-CKO 20 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE PENDING THE COURT'S 21 Vv. RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, OR STAY THE CASE AND 22 || RAC ACCEPTANCE WEST, LLC, a COMPEL ARBITRATION Delaware limited liability company; 23 || ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC. a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 24 || through 10, inclusive, Complaint filed: August 14, 2020 25 Defendants. (Solano County Superior Court Case No.: FCS055207) 26 27 28 P.C. SONTER ENCE OR DERY RULE 26 (F) Case No. 2:20-cv-01880-MCE-CKO 1 Plaintiff ESEN HOUSTON (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants RAC ACCEPTANCE WEST, LLC 2 || and ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC (jointly referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their respective 3 || counsel, do hereby stipulate and agree to stay the Rule 26(f) Conference until the Court has ruled on 4 || Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or Stay the Case and Compel Arbitration ("Defendants' Motion"). 5 Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, or Stay the Case and Compel Arbitration on October 6 || 22, 2020, noticing the Motion for hearing on December 17, 2020. (ECF No. 5) 7 On October 26, 2020, the Court issued a Minute Order pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) vacating 8 || the oral argument and deeming the motion submitted pursuant to the briefing papers filed and to be 9 || filed in support of and in opposition thereto. (ECF No. 6). 10 Defendants’ Motion presents an issue of law that is potentially dispositive of Plaintiff's entire 11 || case as against Defendants in this Court. Therefore, the parties have agreed to stay the Rule 26(f) 12 || Conference until the Motion has been ruled upon by this Court. A temporary stay of the Rule 26 (f) 13 || Conference will further the goals of judicial economy, control of the Court’s docket, and an 14 || inexpensive determination of the case. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988). 15 Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, the parties stipulate and request that the Court 16 || stay the Rule 26(f) Conference until an Order has been issued on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 17 || No.5). If Defendants’ motion is denied, the parties will conduct a Rule 26(f) conference within thirty 18 || (30) days of the Court’s Order, and submit a Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and exchange 19 || initial disclosures within twenty one (21) days thereafter. 20 || Dated: November 30, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Iskander GREGORY G. ISKANDER 21 NATALIE M. KUZMA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 22 Attorneys for Defendants RAC ACCEPTANCE WEST, LLC and 23 ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC 24 || Dated: November 30, 2020 /s/ Miriam L. Schimmel 45 MIRIAM L. SCHIMMEL DANIEL F. GAINES 6 EVAN S. GAINES GAINES & GAINES, APLC 27 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ESEN HOUSTON 28 P.C. STIPULATION TO STAY RULE 26(F) GQONFERENCE: ORDER Case No. 2:20-cv-01880-MCE-CKO 1 ORDER 2 Upon consideration of the parties Stipulation to Stay Rule 26(f) Conference Pending the 3 || Court's Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or Stay the Case and Compel Arbitration (ECF 4 || No. 5), it is hereby: 5 ORDERED that the Rule 26(f) Conference is hereby stayed until the Court has rendered a 6 || ruling on Defendants’ aforementioned Motion. 7 It is further ORDERED that if the Motion is denied, the Parties should engage in a Rule 26(f) 8 || Conference within thirty days (30) of the Court’s ruling, and exchange initial disclosures within 9 || twenty one (21) days of the Rule 26(f) conference. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: December 4, 2020 Matar LEK: rlASX Dues □□□ □□□ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO STAY RULE 26() 2. Case No. 2:20-cv-01880-MCE-CKO