Kevin Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.

Opinion

MICHAEL J. STORTZ (SBN 139386) 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104-1036 Email: mstortz@akingump.com Telephone: 415.765.9500 Facsimile: 415.765.9501

SHELLY A. KIM (SBN 322231) 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 990067-6022 Email: shelly.kim@akingump.com Telephone: 310.229.1000 Facsimile: 310.229.1001 Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC.

KENNETH H. YOON (State Bar No. 198443) kyoon@yoonlaw.com STEPHANIE E. YASUDA (State Bar No. 265480) syasuda@yoonlaw.com One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on Case No. 1:20-cv-01360-DAD-JLT behalf of all others similarly situated STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION PENDING Plaintiff, APPEAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER v. (Doc. 38) WALMART INC., Defendant.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff Kevin Johnson (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Defendant”) (together, the “Parties”), through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff commenced the instant action on September 23, 2020; WHEREAS, on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19); WHEREAS, on December 28, 2020, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay this action (ECF No. 20) (“Motion”); WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to stay discovery pending final resolution of the Motion (ECF No. 23); WHEREAS, the Court denied the Motion by order dated July 30, 2021 (ECF No. 31) (“Denial Order”); WHEREAS, on August 25, 2021, Defendant timely filed its notice of appeal of the Denial Order (ECF No. 33); WHEREAS, by minute order dated August 26, 2021 (ECF No. 34), the Court directed the Parties to file a stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of the appeal, or submit briefs addressing whether the action should be stayed, and vacated the date for the initial scheduling conference; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this action should be stayed pending final resolution of the appeal, insofar as: (a) the appeal will present serious legal questions, including whether Plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration provision; (b) Defendant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending appeal; (c) the balance of hardships for Plaintiff is mixed; and (d) the public interest, including the preservation of judicial resources, warrants a stay pending appeal (see Hansen v. Rock Holdings, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00179, 2020 WL3867652 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2020) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (setting forth standard for stay pending appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration)). NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties that this action shall be stayed in its entirety pending final resolution of Defendant’s appeal.

Dated: September 1, 2021 YOON LAW, APC

By /s/ Kenneth H. Yoon Kenneth H. Yoon Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Johnson Dated: September 1, 2021 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

By /s/ Michael J. Stortz Michael J. Stortz

Attorneys for WALMART INC.

[PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS: 1. This action is STAYED in its entirety pending final resolution of Defendant’s appeal. 2. Within 14 days of the Court of Appeals issuing a decision on the appeal, the parties SHALL file a joint statement setting forth the status of the matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 1, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE