Rios v. Magellan HRSC, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. (SBN 251563) 2 josh@falakassalaw.com 3 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, California 90067 4 Tel: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 5 BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. Mehrdad Bokhour (Cal. Bar No. 285256) 6 mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 7 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 975-1493; Fax: (310) 975-1215 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Classes 9 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 10 Barbara A. Blackburn, Bar No. 253731 bblackburn@littler.com 11 Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Bar No. 312067 njenkins@littler.com 12 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, California 95814 13 Telephone: 916.830.7200 Fax No.: 916.561.0828 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 MAGELLAN HRSC, INC 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 SOFIA RIOS, on behalf of herself and all others Case No. 2:22-cv-01219-KJM-AC similarly situated, 20 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE Plaintiff, DISCOVERY AND CLASS 21 CERTIFICATION DEADLINES AND v. ORDER 22 MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., an OHIO 23 CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Trial Date: None Set Complaint Filed: May 23, 2022 24 Defendant. 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION 2 Plaintiff SOFIA RIOS (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant MAGELLAN HRSC INC. 3 (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby 4 agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 23, 2022 in Sacramento County 6 Superior Court, and Defendant timely removed this matter to this Court on July 11, 2022. 7 WHEREAS, on November 17, 2022, the Parties filed their Joint Report of their Rule 8 26(f) Conference and Proposed Discovery Plan (Dkt. 10), which included proposed deadlines for 9 Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, and for Defendant to oppose such a motion; 10 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2022, this Court held an initial Case Management 11 Conference, and issued its Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 11), which set a discovery completion date 12 of August 18, 2023, and Class Certification Motion hearing date of September 22, 2023. The Court 13 did not schedule any further dates past the Class Certification Motion hearing (i.e., no trial date has 14 been set). 15 WHEREAS, the Parties have now agreed to pursue a private mediation in hopes to 16 reach a global resolution of this matter before engaging in further discovery and litigation efforts (i.e., 17 before moving for Class Certification). However, the majority of California’s well-known and 18 reputable wage and hour class action mediators are not available for a mediation date for at least the 19 next six months (i.e., November 2023 at the earliest), which would be past the current discovery cut 20 off and class certification motion deadline. 21 WHEREAS, in order to allow the Parties time to submit to mediation in November or 22 December 2023 and thereafter, if unable to settle, complete any remaining, necessary discovery prior 23 to having to move for and oppose class certification, the Parties stipulate to continue the current 24 discovery cut off and class certification deadlines by a period of nine months. 25 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to modify the Scheduling Order to allow them 26 the opportunity to mediate this case and potentially reach a resolution without the need to conduct 27 further discovery and litigation efforts at this time. 28 /// 1 2 WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: 3 The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 4 litigation…” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and 5 internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 6 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 7 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing 8 summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). 9 To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must 10 generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. 11 Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 12 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it became 13 apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” 14 courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing 15 the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in 16 prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (involving 17 amendment of pleadings). 18 Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s scheduling order given the 19 Parties’ agreement to mediate as soon as possible. However, a mediation with a reputable wage and 20 hour class action mediator cannot be scheduled for at least the next six months due to the mediators’ 21 availability. This modification to extend the Parties’ Class Certification brief schedule and related 22 deadlines would allow the Parties the opportunity to focus their resources (both time and expense) on 23 settlement as opposed to engaging in costly class certification discovery and motion work. 24 Consequently, a modification of the scheduling order would result in a savings of judicial resources 25 in having to hear and decide a class certification motion. Finally, should the Parties’ mediation be 26 successful, the need for any further motion work or a trial in this case would be eliminated. 27 /// 28 /// 1 THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to continue and/or 2 modify the Scheduling Order as follows: 3 Last Day to Complete Discovery Related to Class Certification: May 17, 2024 4  Hearing on Class Certification Motion(s) on: June 21, 2024. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 7 Dated: May 16, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 8 9 /s/ Nathaniel Jenkins 10 Barbara A. Blackburn Nathaniel H. Jenkins 11 Attorneys for Defendant MAGELLAN HRSC, INC. 12 13 14 Dated: May 16, 2023 BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 15 16 /s/Mehrdad Bokhour (approved on 5/12/23) 17 Mehrdad Bokhour Joshua Falakassa 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff SOFIA RIOS and the Putative Classes 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, the Court orders the Scheduling Order to be modified as ° follows: 4 e Last Day to Complete Discovery Related to Class Certification: May 17, 2024; and ° e Hearing on Class Certification Motion(s) by: June 21, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | DATED: May 16, 2022. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 4 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND CLASS 5 CASE NO, 2:22-CV-01219-KIMAC