Roll v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

E.D. California

Roll v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 23, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-01927·Unknown

Opinion

JEREMY PASTERNAK, BAR NO. 181618 jdp@pasternaklaw.com DEANNA L. MAXFIELD, BAR NO. 291913 dm@pasternaklaw.com 354 Pine Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.693.0300 Fax No.: 415.693.0393

Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS ROLL KARA L. JASSY, BAR NO. 198846 kjassy@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Fax No.: 213.443.4299 Attorneys for Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS ROLL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, WALMART INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 16, 2021 Trial Date: September 12, 2023 Defendants. Plaintiff THOMAS ROLL (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and WALMART INC.. (“Defendants” or “Wal-Mart”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 16, 2021 in Tehama County Superior Court. Thereafter, Defendant timely removed this Action to this Court on October 15, 2021; WHEREAS, on February 24, 2022, this Court vacated the initial Case Management Conference and in light of the Parties’ Joint statement, adopted the following Scheduling Order: Last Day to Designate Experts December 30, 2022 Close of Fact Discovery February 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline May 1, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference July 17, 2023 Jury Trial September 12, 2023 WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, the Parties propounded and responded to written discovery requests, and engaged in informal settlement discussions. The Parties have yet to take depositions and exhaust written discovery efforts, but have made headway toward a resolution, and have agreed to submit this matter to private mediation before mediator Laurie Quigley Saldana on April 5, 2023; WHEREAS, however, quickly approaching deadlines, including the discovery cut off and dispositive motion deadline, are hindering the Parties’ ability to submit to mediation and negotiate a reasonable settlement without incurring the time and costs in preparing a dispositive motion and retaining expert witnesses for trial. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a 180-day continuance of the Court’s current Scheduling Order is necessary to allow the Parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions in an effort to finally resolve this matter without need for Defendant to file, and Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s summary judgment motion, as well as prepare for trial, should this matter not be summarily dismissed. WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation…” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (involving amendment of pleadings). Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s scheduling order given the Parties’ inability to complete necessary discovery within the current Scheduling Order’s timetable, and further engage in final, meaningful settlement discussions without the need to spend any unnecessary time and money moving for/opposing summary judgment and otherwise retaining experts and preparing for trial. Given the current time constraints of the current Scheduling Order, the Parties will need a reasonable continuance to allow the Parties time to engage in mediation to continue good faith settlement negotiation efforts and potentially negate the need for a dispositive motion and/or trial. THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to modify and continue the Scheduling Order out by a minimum of 180 days so as to allow the Parties additional time to allow the Parties time to engage in private mediation and potentially negate the need for a dispositive motion and/or trial. Accordingly, the Parties propose the following modified scheduling order: Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference January 22, 2024 Jury Trial March 12, 2024 Dated: January 19, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. By: /s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins Kara L. Jassy Nathaniel H. Jenkins Attorneys for Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AND WALMART INC Dated: January 19, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK By: /s/ Deanna Maxfield (as approved on 1/19/23)_ Jeremy Pasternak Deanna L. Maxfield Attorneys for Plaintiff

I, NATHANIEL H. JENKINS, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other Signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document. Signed this 19th day of January, 2023.

/s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and upon good cause shown, the Court sets forth the following modified Scheduling Order: Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference January 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. Jury Trial March 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. ° he Lhe aK. Dated: January 20, 2023 (et.t-— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4864-1793-8763.1 / 080000-4217 Joint Stip to Modify Scheduling Order 5 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JEREMY PASTERNAK, BAR NO. 181618 jdp@pasternaklaw.com DEANNA L. MAXFIELD, BAR NO. 291913 dm@pasternaklaw.com 354 Pine Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.693.0300 Fax No.: 415.693.0393

Attorneys for Plaintiff THOMAS ROLL KARA L. JASSY, BAR NO. 198846 kjassy@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.443.4300 Fax No.: 213.443.4299 Attorneys for Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS ROLL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, WALMART INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Complaint Filed: September 16, 2021 Trial Date: September 12, 2023 Defendants. Plaintiff THOMAS ROLL (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and WALMART INC.. (“Defendants” or “Wal-Mart”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and respectfully stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 16, 2021 in Tehama County Superior Court. Thereafter, Defendant timely removed this Action to this Court on October 15, 2021; WHEREAS, on February 24, 2022, this Court vacated the initial Case Management Conference and in light of the Parties’ Joint statement, adopted the following Scheduling Order: Last Day to Designate Experts December 30, 2022 Close of Fact Discovery February 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline May 1, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference July 17, 2023 Jury Trial September 12, 2023 WHEREAS, immediately thereafter, the Parties propounded and responded to written discovery requests, and engaged in informal settlement discussions. The Parties have yet to take depositions and exhaust written discovery efforts, but have made headway toward a resolution, and have agreed to submit this matter to private mediation before mediator Laurie Quigley Saldana on April 5, 2023; WHEREAS, however, quickly approaching deadlines, including the discovery cut off and dispositive motion deadline, are hindering the Parties’ ability to submit to mediation and negotiate a reasonable settlement without incurring the time and costs in preparing a dispositive motion and retaining expert witnesses for trial. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a 180-day continuance of the Court’s current Scheduling Order is necessary to allow the Parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions in an effort to finally resolve this matter without need for Defendant to file, and Plaintiff to oppose Defendant’s summary judgment motion, as well as prepare for trial, should this matter not be summarily dismissed. WHEREAS, good cause exists to modify the Court’s scheduling Order as follows: The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation…” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see e.g. Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir. 1990) (court impliedly granted motion to modify scheduling order by allowing summary judgment motion after pretrial motion cut-off date). To establish “good cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the order’s timetable. Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609; see e.g., Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1224 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (granting request for modification that was promptly made when it became apparent that compliance with the scheduling order was not possible). In determining “good cause,” courts also consider the importance of the requested modification, the potential prejudice in allowing the modification, and, conversely, whether denial of the requested modification would result in prejudice. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (involving amendment of pleadings). Here, good cause exists for a modification of the Court’s scheduling order given the Parties’ inability to complete necessary discovery within the current Scheduling Order’s timetable, and further engage in final, meaningful settlement discussions without the need to spend any unnecessary time and money moving for/opposing summary judgment and otherwise retaining experts and preparing for trial. Given the current time constraints of the current Scheduling Order, the Parties will need a reasonable continuance to allow the Parties time to engage in mediation to continue good faith settlement negotiation efforts and potentially negate the need for a dispositive motion and/or trial. THEREFORE, upon good cause shown, the Parties stipulate to modify and continue the Scheduling Order out by a minimum of 180 days so as to allow the Parties additional time to allow the Parties time to engage in private mediation and potentially negate the need for a dispositive motion and/or trial. Accordingly, the Parties propose the following modified scheduling order: Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference January 22, 2024 Jury Trial March 12, 2024 Dated: January 19, 2023 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. By: /s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins Kara L. Jassy Nathaniel H. Jenkins Attorneys for Defendants WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. AND WALMART INC Dated: January 19, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK By: /s/ Deanna Maxfield (as approved on 1/19/23)_ Jeremy Pasternak Deanna L. Maxfield Attorneys for Plaintiff

I, NATHANIEL H. JENKINS, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other Signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document. Signed this 19th day of January, 2023.

/s/Nathaniel H. Jenkins

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, and upon good cause shown, the Court sets forth the following modified Scheduling Order: Last Day to Designate Experts June 28, 2023 Close of Fact Discovery August 28, 2023 Dispositive Motion Deadline October 30, 2023 Final Pretrial Conference January 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. Jury Trial March 12, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. ° he Lhe aK. Dated: January 20, 2023 (et.t-— UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4864-1793-8763.1 / 080000-4217 Joint Stip to Modify Scheduling Order 5 2:21-CV-01927-WBS-DNC

Roll v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Roll v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (Roll v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related