Solorio v. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Carolyn H. Cottrell (SBN 166977) David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) 2 Scott L. Gordon (SBN 319872) SCHNEIDER WALLACE 3 COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 4 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 5 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com 6 dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 12 PRISCILLA SOLORIO and MARIANO Case No.: 1:20-CV-01051-NONE-JLT DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others

13 similarly situated, STIPULATION GRANTING LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO 14 Plaintiffs, REPLY EVIDENCE AND/OR SURREPLY v. TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 15 ARBITRATION, DISMISS CLASS 16 A INB CC .; P aH ndO DN OE ES SO 1F - 1N 0O 0,R iT ncH lu C siA veR ,O LINA, A [PL RL OE PG OA ST EI DO ]N OS R, A DN ERD STAY ACTION;

17 Defendants. (Doc. 11) 18

25 26 27

28 1 Plaintiffs Priscilla Solorio and Mariano Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

2 situated (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. (“Defendant”)

3 (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as

4 follows:

5 1. Plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting wage and hour claims with respect to

6 Store Managers at Defendant’s retail locations.

7 2. Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and

8 Stay Action (the “Motion”) on November 25, 2020 (ECF 7).

9 3. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion on January 13, 2021 (ECF 8), and

10 Defendant filed its reply on January 20, 2021 (ECF 10).

11 4. Plaintiffs have prepared the Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to

12 Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the

13 “Objection/Surreply”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, to object to and address issues raised in

14 Defendant’s reply and related filings.

15 5. Plaintiffs provided the Objection/Surreply to Defendant’s counsel, and based on the

16 circumstances and without conceding the validity of any of the issues raises therein, Defendant has

17 agreed to stipulate to its filing.

18 6. The Local Rules and the Federal Rules do not provide the right to file a surreply or

19 objections to reply evidence, but a district court may allow a surreply to be filed “where a valid

20 reason for such additional briefing exists.” Hartline v. Nat'l Univ., No. 2:14-CV-0635 KJM AC 21 PS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8127, at *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015). 22 Accordingly, counsel for the Parties agree that good cause exists and leave for Plaintiffs to file 23 the Objection/Surreply should be granted, and respectfully request that the Court issue an order that 24 the Objection/Surreply is deemed filed. 25 // 26 // 27 28 -1- 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

3 Respectfully submitted,

4 Date: January 22, 2021

5 /s/ Scott L. Gordon 6 Carolyn H. Cottrell

7 David C. Leimbach Scott L. Gordon 8 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class 10

11 Date: January 22, 2021 12

13 /s/ Robert L. Shipley Robert L. Shipley 14 Brandon S. Gray ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC 15

16 Attorneys for Defendant

17 18

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER

2 Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that

3 Plaintiffs’ Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to Defendant’s Motion to Compel

4 Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action, filed at ECF 11-1, is deemed filed.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7

Dated: January 25, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-