Coy v. Southern Home Care Services, Inc.

Opinion

Galen T. Shimoda (Cal. State Bar No. 226752) Justin P. Rodriguez (Cal. State Bar No. 278275) Brittany V. Berzin (Cal. State Bar No. 325121) Jessica L. Hart (Cal. State Bar No. 331441) Shimoda Law Corp. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com bberzin@shimodalaw.com jhart@shimodalaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff ELIZABETH COY individually and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELIZABETH COY, on behalf of herself and Case No. 2:21-CV-00067-JAM-CKD Aggrieved Employees Hon. Judge John A. Mendez Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO VACATE THE vs. FRCP, RULE 26 (F) DEADLINES SET FOURTH IN THIS COURT’S ORDER RE SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES, SERVICE OF PROCESS AND JOINT INC., a Delaware Corporation; RES-CARE STATUS REPORT PENDING THIS CALIFORNIA, INC. (DBA RCCA COURT’S ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S SERVICES), a Delaware Corporation; RES- MOTION TO REMAND; ORDER CARE, INC. (DBA ALL WAYS CARING HOMECARE), a Kentucky Corporation; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Filed: 11/25/2020 Corporation; CRISTINA KOVAL, an Removed: 01/13/2021 individual; ELIZABETH FLOREZ, an Trial Date: Not Set individual, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: // Plaintiff ELIZABETH COY (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES, INC.; RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. (SBA RCCA SERVICES); RES-CARE, INC. (DBA ALL WAYS CARING HOMECARE); and RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., (“Defendants”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) hereby submit this joint stipulation to vacate the FRCP, Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report deadlines set forth in this Court’s Order Requiring Service of Process and Joint Status Report pending an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and state as follows: 1. WHEREAS, Defendants removed this individual wage and hour and PAGA action from Sacramento County Superior Court on January 1, 2013. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1); 2. WHEREAS, the Court issued an Order Requiring Service of Process and Joint Status Report on January 13, 2021. (D.E. 2); 3. WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 20, 2021; (D.E. 3); 4. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this action back to state court on February 8, 2021. (D.E. 4); 5. WHEREAS, the Motion to Remand was fully briefed on March 2, 2021 (D.E. 8); 6. WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the Parties agreed that, given the pending Motion to Remand and considering judicial and party efficiency, it was best to request that the deadlines in the Court’s Order Requiring Service of Process and Joint Status Report regarding the FRCP, Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report be vacated, pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to determine the threshold issue of removal, and the related issues raised by Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Marley v. United States, 567 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction”); Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-431 (2007) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause; it may not assume jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits of the case”); 7. WHEREAS, the Parties further agree that postponing the Rule 26 (f) deadlines until Plaintiff’s challenge to jurisdiction has been resolved will facilitate to the mutual goal of the Parties to minimize attorneys’ fees; 8. WHEREAS, the Parties agree and propose to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f); 9. This extension is the first extension sought regarding the requirements of Rule 26(f); 10. The extension is not sought for any improper purpose or to delay and will not result in prejudice to either party; 11. If the Court is not inclined to vacate the deadlines in the Order pending a ruling on the Motion to Remand, the Parties will promptly meet and confer and submit a full Joint Statement of the case; 12. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate to confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f). Dated: March 3, 2021 SHIMODA LAW CORP. By: /s/ Jessica L Hart Galen T. Shimoda Justin P. Rodriguez Brittany V. Berzin Jessica L. Hart Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: March 3, 2021 HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP By: /s/ Phil. J. Montoya Phil J. Montoya, Jr. Attorney for Defendants The COURT, having considered the above stipulation, HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. The deadlines set forth in this Court’s Order Requiring Service of Process and Joint Status Report regarding the FRCP, Rule 26(f) conference and Joint Status Report are vacated pending the Court’s Order on the Motion to Remand; and 2. The Parties shall confer in accordance with Rule 26(f) within 30 days of the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, and thereafter within the time specified by Rule 26, make the initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) and file their report pursuant to Rule 26(f). DATED: March 3, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE