Synoracki v. Alaska Airlines Inc

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 6 LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all 7 others similarly situated No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL 8 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND 9 v. ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND 10 ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., et al., TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS 11 Defendants. CERTIFICATION

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, jointly submit this stipulated motion 16 to extend Defendants’ deadline to file their response (the “Response”) to Plaintiff’s Motion for 17 Class Certification (Dkt. No. 40) (the “Motion”), currently due April 27, 2020, by 14 days to May 18 11, 2020 and for Plaintiff’s Motion, currently noted for May 1, 2020, to be noted for consideration 19 on May 15, 2020. Good cause exists for this extension because Defendants are currently reviewing 20 Plaintiff’s putative classes and proposed class definitions along with accompanying materials, and 21 additional time may be helpful in narrowing the scope of disputed issues to be addressed in 22 Defendants’ Response. 23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 In this civil class action brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and 25 Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes 26 1 of pilots employed by Defendants who allegedly did not accrue vacation or sick time while on 2 periods of military leave. 3 This case was filed in December 2018. Trial is set for December 7, 2020. Plaintiff filed 4 the Motion on April 7, 2020, which is noted for a hearing on May 1, 2020. Defendants’ Response 5 is currently due April 27, 2020. 7 The Court may extend a party’s deadline to respond to a motion where good cause exists. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(a); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 (“[R]equests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should 10 normally . . . be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or 11 prejudice to the adverse party.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 The parties stipulate that good cause exists to extend Defendants’ time to respond to 13 Plaintiff’s Motion by 14 days because Defendants are currently reviewing Plaintiff’s putative 14 classes and proposed class definitions along with accompanying materials, and additional time 15 may be helpful in narrowing the scope of disputed issues to be addressed in Defendants’ Response. 16 (See Dkt. No. 40 at 4.) Specifically, Defendants and Plaintiff have been in communication to 17 determine the scope of disputed issues regarding Plaintiff’s proposed putative classes and class 18 definitions, and these discussions could potentially narrow the issues that will be addressed by 19 Defendants’ Response and will need to be considered by this Court. Therefore, good cause exists 20 for a short, two-week extension that will allow the parties additional time to discuss Plaintiff’s 21 proposed class definitions. 22 This is the first request by the parties for an extension of time for Defendants to file a 23 Response to Plaintiff’s Motion

24 25 26 2 For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully move the Court to extend Defendants’ 3 time to file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion from April 27, 2020 to May 11, 2020, and to notice 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for May 15, 2020.

5 FOR DEFENDANTS:

6 By: /s/ Mark W. Robertson Mark W. Robertson (admitted pro hac vice) Kathryn S. Rosen, WSBA #29465 7 (N.Y. Bar #4508248) Davis Wright Tremaine O’Melveny & Myers LLP 920 5th Avenue, Ste. 3300 8 7 Times Square Seattle, Washington 98104-1610 New York, New York 10036 Tel.: (206) 622-3150 9 Tel.: (212) 326-2000 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Fax: (212) 326-2061 katierosen@dwt.com 10 mrobertson@omm.com Tristan Morales (admitted pro hac vice) 11 Counsel for Defendants (D.C. Bar # 1011373) O’Melveny & Myers LLP 12 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 13 Tel.: (202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414 14 tmorales@omm.com

15 FOR PLAINTIFF: 16 By: /s/ Gene J. Stonebarger Gene J. Stonebarger(admitted Pro Hac Vice) Brian J. Lawler (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 17 gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com blawler@pilotlawcorp.com Crystal L. Matter (admitted Pro Hac Vice) PILOT LAW, P.C. 18 cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com 850 Beech Street, Suite 713 STONEBARGER LAW San Diego, California 92101 19 101 Parkshore Drive Phone: 866.512.2465 Suite 100 Fax: 619.231.4984 20 Folsom, California 95630 Phone: 916.235.7140 Charles M. Billy (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 21 Fax: 916.235.7141 cbilly@cmblawcorp.com The Law Offices of Charles M. Billy, APC 22 Daniel Kalish 22706 Aspan Street, Ste 305 dkalish@hkm.com Lake Forest, CA 92630 23 HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP Phone: 949-357-9636 600 Stewart Street, Ste 901 24 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-838-2504 25

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) 26 1 ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing stipulation, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for class 3 certification (Dkt. No. 40) is noted for hearing on May 15, 2020, and Defendants’ response to 4 Plaintiff’s motion, if any, shall be filed by May 11, 2020. 5

6 Dated this 24th day of April, 2020.

7 A 8 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 9 United States District Court Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26