DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244) davidm@mastagni.com AMANDA R. MCARTHY, ESQ. (SBN 354058) amccarthy@mastagni.com ALEXANDRA N. HOLLAND (SBN 363507) aholland@mastagni.com MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C. 1912 I Street Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LISA S. CHARBONNEAU, Bar No. 245906 lcharbonneau@lcwlegal.com M.LUCY GOODNOUGH, Bar No. 310607 lgoodnough@lcwlegal.com LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE A Professional Law Corporation 135 Main Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-3000 Facsimile: (415) 856-0306 Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing for Limited Purpose PHILIP ADAME, JAMESON AMATO, Case No. 5:26-cv-03740-SVK JOSHUA AZOFEIFA, KORDELL BAKER, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME MICHAEL BARNES, DAVE BATTAGIN, LIMIT FOR SERVICE AND CONTINUE JASON BEALS, JEFFREY BECKNALL, RACHEL BERGLUND, ELVEDIN Date Action Filed: April 29, 2026 BESLAGIC, DAVID BOWEN, TREVOR Judge: Hon. Susan van Keulen SIDDHARTHA CHIB, DOUGLAS CHRISTIAN, MICHAEL COLE, JACOB JILLIAN DEBAR, NICK DELGADO, DUPERLY, CHRIS EICHHORN, HUGO FIGUEROA, MITCH FLAHERTY, ROBERT FLETCHER, ROBERT NATHAN FORD, CHRISTOPHER AARON GANDY, BRIAN GAUKEL, DMITRIY GOLOVEY, LANDO GREY, JACOB GUERRIERA, BRANDON HALE, ELIZABETH HARKINS, DANIEL HEMENEZ, CARLOS HERNANDEZ, HERSCOVITCH, JUSTIN HO, VAN HUYNH, NATALIE INGRAM, STEVE JUNGE, KEITH JYUNG, STEVEN KELLER, DAVID KENT, PHILLIP KLEINHEINZ, JAMIN KNIGHT, MARIE LEDUC, LUKAS LERNER, BLAKE MARRONE, EDUARDO MAYA, NICOLE MICHAEL MCGEE, PEDRO MENA, BRANDON MERRICK, ELI MERVINE, MURGALLIS, PETER MURGALLIS, JEFFREY ORLANDO, JOSE OROZCO, ANTHONY PASCOAL, PETER PASCOAL, ROBERT PERRY, BRIAN PRICE, RYAN RENSHAW, DOMINIC RESTANI, KELLEY RICHARDS, JASON RIDER, DENNIS SHADDLE, RYAN SHOEMAKER, BRYAN SILVA, ANDRE SMITH, SEAN TRACY, HUONG GIANG WILDEROTTER, DAVID WILLIAMS, WILLIS, DAVID YANNELLI-TOCA, DENNIS YEE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendants. TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: WHEREAS, this putative collective action was filed on April 29, 2026, asserting Defendant City of SANTA CLARA violated the overtime payment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). WHEREAS, prior to filing the collective action, on October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel David E. Mastagni notified Defendant by letter to the City Attorney of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and requested to enter a tolling agreement, so that the Parties could explore settlement. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel David E. Mastagni and Defendant entered a tolling agreement effective October 3, 2025 through December 31, 2026. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs submitted a detailed, global settlement offer to Defendant on December 3, 2025. WHEREAS, on February 6, 2026, Plaintiffs sent a letter requesting that the City engage in good faith settlement negotiations. WHEREAS, the City retained outside counsel for this matter and Plaintiffs filed the complaint; Plaintiffs also notified Defendant of the filed complaint and offered to continue settlement discussions. settlement, Plaintiffs agreed to delay service of the complaint. Plaintiffs agreed to delay service as a strategic choice made in good faith to avoid escalating costs though potentially avoidable litigation. The Parties agreed that if settlement discussions were successful, there would be no need to serve Defendant. Courts have recognized that good faith settlement negotiations constituted good cause to extend the deadline for service of process upon Defendant. United Coin Mach. Co. v. Gaming Tech. Grp., No. 2:12-cv-195-LRH-PAL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96076, at *3 (D. Nev. Jul. 10, 2012); Spengler v. Seagate Tech., No. CIV. 89-20102 SW, 1991 WL 335996, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 1991); Assad v. Liberty Chevrolet, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 31, 31 (D.R.I. 1989). WHEREAS, the Parties have engaged in continued substantive and productive settlement discussions, including the City’s explanation of its overtime regular rate practices including detailed payroll and time records for one representative work period. The Parties have exchanged legal authorities regarding Plaintiffs claims and the proper methodology for calculating overtime. WHEREAS, Defendant has engaged an accounting firm to analyze Plaintiffs’ payroll records and calculate purported damages. WHEREAS, Defendant intends to present a formal settlement offer. WHEREAS, the current deadline to serve Defendant is July 28, 2026. A 30-day extension of time to effect service of process will provide Defendant sufficient time to respond to Plaintiff's settlement offer without causing any prejudice. Parties have proposed related extensions to case management events (ECF No. 9) set out in the table set forth below, subject to the Court’s approval. WHEREAS, neither Party has requested and the Parties have not stipulated to prior time modifications in this matter. WHEREAS, the Court continued the Initial Case Management Conference from August 4, 2026 to August 11, 2026 (ECF No. 13). WHEREAS, Parties agree that this stipulation is not to be considered a general appearance by the City. Parties agree that counsel for the City makes a special, limited appearance for the sole purpose of this stipulated request for extension of time for service and related management deadlines to accommodate continued settlement discussions and in hope of avoiding the need for further court arguments, including but not limited to challenges to the court’s jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations, and validity/enforceability of the tolling agreement. Plaintiffs waive any right to raise any argument to the contrary. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the Parties that Plaintiffs time to effect service of process shall be extended to August 27, 2026. The Parties also stipulate and respectfully request to continue the dates in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (ECF No. 9) and the Court Order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference (ECF No. 13) as follows: Case Management Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline File Certification of Conflicts and Interested Upon first Upon first Entities or Persons. appearance (and appearance (and (See Civil L.R. 3-15) supplement as supplement as necessary) necessary) Defendant’s Deadline to Consent/Decline Within 14 days of Within 14 days of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction first appearance first appearance after service Deadline to file ADR Certification. 7/14/26 10/13/26 (See ADR L.R. 3) Deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, 7/14/26 10/13/26 early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan. (See F.R. Civ. P. 26(f)) Deadline to make initial disclosures. (See F.R. 7/28/26 10/27/26 Civ. P. 26(a)(1)) Deadline to file Joint Case Management 8/4/26 10/27/26 Statement. (See Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California) Deadline to email list of names and emails of 8/8/26 at 10/30/26 at counsel and parties to appear at Initial Case 3:00 PM 3:00 PM Management Conference Initial Case Management Conference: To be held 8/11/26 at 11/3/26 at by Zoom. Go to cand.uscourts.gov/svk for Zoom 9:30 AM 9:30 AM link.
/// /// /// IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD: Dated: July 21, 2026 MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C.
By: /s/ David E. Mastagni DAVID E. MASTAGNI ALEXANDRA N. HOLLAND Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: July 21, 2026 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
By: /s/ M. Lucy Goodnough M. LUCY GOODNOUGH Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing for Limited Purpose
I hereby attest that I have obtained the authorization from the signatories to this e-filed document and have been authorized to indicate their consent by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. By: /s/David E, Mastagni DAVID E. MASTAGNI
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244) davidm@mastagni.com AMANDA R. MCARTHY, ESQ. (SBN 354058) amccarthy@mastagni.com ALEXANDRA N. HOLLAND (SBN 363507) aholland@mastagni.com MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C. 1912 I Street Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LISA S. CHARBONNEAU, Bar No. 245906 lcharbonneau@lcwlegal.com M.LUCY GOODNOUGH, Bar No. 310607 lgoodnough@lcwlegal.com LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE A Professional Law Corporation 135 Main Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-3000 Facsimile: (415) 856-0306 Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing for Limited Purpose PHILIP ADAME, JAMESON AMATO, Case No. 5:26-cv-03740-SVK JOSHUA AZOFEIFA, KORDELL BAKER, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME MICHAEL BARNES, DAVE BATTAGIN, LIMIT FOR SERVICE AND CONTINUE JASON BEALS, JEFFREY BECKNALL, RACHEL BERGLUND, ELVEDIN Date Action Filed: April 29, 2026 BESLAGIC, DAVID BOWEN, TREVOR Judge: Hon. Susan van Keulen SIDDHARTHA CHIB, DOUGLAS CHRISTIAN, MICHAEL COLE, JACOB JILLIAN DEBAR, NICK DELGADO, DUPERLY, CHRIS EICHHORN, HUGO FIGUEROA, MITCH FLAHERTY, ROBERT FLETCHER, ROBERT NATHAN FORD, CHRISTOPHER AARON GANDY, BRIAN GAUKEL, DMITRIY GOLOVEY, LANDO GREY, JACOB GUERRIERA, BRANDON HALE, ELIZABETH HARKINS, DANIEL HEMENEZ, CARLOS HERNANDEZ, HERSCOVITCH, JUSTIN HO, VAN HUYNH, NATALIE INGRAM, STEVE JUNGE, KEITH JYUNG, STEVEN KELLER, DAVID KENT, PHILLIP KLEINHEINZ, JAMIN KNIGHT, MARIE LEDUC, LUKAS LERNER, BLAKE MARRONE, EDUARDO MAYA, NICOLE MICHAEL MCGEE, PEDRO MENA, BRANDON MERRICK, ELI MERVINE, MURGALLIS, PETER MURGALLIS, JEFFREY ORLANDO, JOSE OROZCO, ANTHONY PASCOAL, PETER PASCOAL, ROBERT PERRY, BRIAN PRICE, RYAN RENSHAW, DOMINIC RESTANI, KELLEY RICHARDS, JASON RIDER, DENNIS SHADDLE, RYAN SHOEMAKER, BRYAN SILVA, ANDRE SMITH, SEAN TRACY, HUONG GIANG WILDEROTTER, DAVID WILLIAMS, WILLIS, DAVID YANNELLI-TOCA, DENNIS YEE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendants. TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: WHEREAS, this putative collective action was filed on April 29, 2026, asserting Defendant City of SANTA CLARA violated the overtime payment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). WHEREAS, prior to filing the collective action, on October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel David E. Mastagni notified Defendant by letter to the City Attorney of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims and requested to enter a tolling agreement, so that the Parties could explore settlement. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel David E. Mastagni and Defendant entered a tolling agreement effective October 3, 2025 through December 31, 2026. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs submitted a detailed, global settlement offer to Defendant on December 3, 2025. WHEREAS, on February 6, 2026, Plaintiffs sent a letter requesting that the City engage in good faith settlement negotiations. WHEREAS, the City retained outside counsel for this matter and Plaintiffs filed the complaint; Plaintiffs also notified Defendant of the filed complaint and offered to continue settlement discussions. settlement, Plaintiffs agreed to delay service of the complaint. Plaintiffs agreed to delay service as a strategic choice made in good faith to avoid escalating costs though potentially avoidable litigation. The Parties agreed that if settlement discussions were successful, there would be no need to serve Defendant. Courts have recognized that good faith settlement negotiations constituted good cause to extend the deadline for service of process upon Defendant. United Coin Mach. Co. v. Gaming Tech. Grp., No. 2:12-cv-195-LRH-PAL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96076, at *3 (D. Nev. Jul. 10, 2012); Spengler v. Seagate Tech., No. CIV. 89-20102 SW, 1991 WL 335996, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 1991); Assad v. Liberty Chevrolet, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 31, 31 (D.R.I. 1989). WHEREAS, the Parties have engaged in continued substantive and productive settlement discussions, including the City’s explanation of its overtime regular rate practices including detailed payroll and time records for one representative work period. The Parties have exchanged legal authorities regarding Plaintiffs claims and the proper methodology for calculating overtime. WHEREAS, Defendant has engaged an accounting firm to analyze Plaintiffs’ payroll records and calculate purported damages. WHEREAS, Defendant intends to present a formal settlement offer. WHEREAS, the current deadline to serve Defendant is July 28, 2026. A 30-day extension of time to effect service of process will provide Defendant sufficient time to respond to Plaintiff's settlement offer without causing any prejudice. Parties have proposed related extensions to case management events (ECF No. 9) set out in the table set forth below, subject to the Court’s approval. WHEREAS, neither Party has requested and the Parties have not stipulated to prior time modifications in this matter. WHEREAS, the Court continued the Initial Case Management Conference from August 4, 2026 to August 11, 2026 (ECF No. 13). WHEREAS, Parties agree that this stipulation is not to be considered a general appearance by the City. Parties agree that counsel for the City makes a special, limited appearance for the sole purpose of this stipulated request for extension of time for service and related management deadlines to accommodate continued settlement discussions and in hope of avoiding the need for further court arguments, including but not limited to challenges to the court’s jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations, and validity/enforceability of the tolling agreement. Plaintiffs waive any right to raise any argument to the contrary. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the Parties that Plaintiffs time to effect service of process shall be extended to August 27, 2026. The Parties also stipulate and respectfully request to continue the dates in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (ECF No. 9) and the Court Order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference (ECF No. 13) as follows: Case Management Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline File Certification of Conflicts and Interested Upon first Upon first Entities or Persons. appearance (and appearance (and (See Civil L.R. 3-15) supplement as supplement as necessary) necessary) Defendant’s Deadline to Consent/Decline Within 14 days of Within 14 days of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction first appearance first appearance after service Deadline to file ADR Certification. 7/14/26 10/13/26 (See ADR L.R. 3) Deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, 7/14/26 10/13/26 early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan. (See F.R. Civ. P. 26(f)) Deadline to make initial disclosures. (See F.R. 7/28/26 10/27/26 Civ. P. 26(a)(1)) Deadline to file Joint Case Management 8/4/26 10/27/26 Statement. (See Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California) Deadline to email list of names and emails of 8/8/26 at 10/30/26 at counsel and parties to appear at Initial Case 3:00 PM 3:00 PM Management Conference Initial Case Management Conference: To be held 8/11/26 at 11/3/26 at by Zoom. Go to cand.uscourts.gov/svk for Zoom 9:30 AM 9:30 AM link.
/// /// /// IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD: Dated: July 21, 2026 MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C.
By: /s/ David E. Mastagni DAVID E. MASTAGNI ALEXANDRA N. HOLLAND Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: July 21, 2026 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
By: /s/ M. Lucy Goodnough M. LUCY GOODNOUGH Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing for Limited Purpose
I hereby attest that I have obtained the authorization from the signatories to this e-filed document and have been authorized to indicate their consent by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. By: /s/David E, Mastagni DAVID E. MASTAGNI
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based on the Parties’ stipulation and for good cause shown, that: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs’ time to effect service of process is extended to August 27, 2026. 2. The Case Management Deadlines are reset as follows: Former Deadline_| New Deadline File Certification of Conflicts and Interested Upon first Upon first Entities or Persons. appearance (and appearance (and (See Civil L.R. 3-15) supplement as supplement as necessa necessa ||| Defendant’s Deadline to Consent/Decline Within 14 days of =| Within 14 days of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction first appearance first appearance after service D Deadline to file ADR Certification. 7/14/26 10/13/26 See ADR L.R. 3 ||| Deadline to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, | 7/14/26 10/13/26 early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan. See F.R. Civ. P. 26 Deadline to make initial disclosures. (See F.R. 7/28/26 10/27/26 Civ. P. 26(a)(1)) (An earlier deadline for disclosures may be required by General Order 71. Deadline to file Joint Case Management 8/4/26 10A726 11/3/26 Statement. (See Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California Deadline to email list of names and emails of 8/8/26 at 6-at counsel and parties to appear at Initial Case 3:00 PM 11/6/26 at 3:00 PM Management Conference Initial Case Management Conference: To be held 8/11/26 at HSE at by Zoom. Go to cand.uscourts.gov/svk for Zoom 9:30 AM 11/10/26 at 9:30 AM link. HONORABLE SUSAN VAN KEULEN