Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01689-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Date of Scheduling Conference: 

February 26, 2020.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Marcus Bradley appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Mark Konkel appeared on behalf of Defendant.

III. Magistrate Judge Consent: Notice of Congested Docket and Court Policy of Trailing

Due to the District Judges’ heavy caseload, the adopted policy of the Fresno Division of the 

Eastern District is to trail all civil cases. The parties are hereby notified that for a trial before a District 

KARINA HERNANDEZ, individually and on 

behalf of other individuals similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AMERIMEZ COMMUICATIONS CORP.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1689- NONE -JLT

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16)

Pleading Amendment Deadline: 6/1/2020

Discovery Deadlines:

Initial Disclosures: 3/13/2020

Mid-Discovery Status Conference: 6/29/2020

Motion re: Employer Status

Filing: 8/26/2020

Hearing: 10/6/2020

Further Scheduling Conference: 12/21/2020

Case 1:19-cv-01689-JLT Document 13 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Judge, the parties will trail indefinitely behind any higher priority criminal or older civil case set on the 

same date until a courtroom becomes available. 

The Magistrate Judges’ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that 

of the U.S. District Judges who carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation and who must prioritize 

criminal and older civil cases over more recently filed civil cases. A United States Magistrate Judge 

may conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States 

Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. 

The Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United 

States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the 

Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice 

before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District 

of California. 

Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to 

conduct all further proceedings, including trial. Within 10 days of the date of this order, counsel 

SHALL file a consent/decline form (provided by the Court at the inception of this case) indicating 

whether they will consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

IV. Pleading Amendment Deadline

Any requested pleading amendments are ordered to be filed, either through a stipulation or 

motion to amend, no later than June 1, 2020.

V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) 

on or before March 13, 2020.

Discovery is now open for discovery pertaining to the issue of joint employment. The 

provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) regarding a party's duty to timely supplement disclosures and 

responses to discovery requests will be strictly enforced.

The issue of whether the discovery limits should be modified from 10 depositions to 25 is 

RESERVED. Counsel SHALL work cooperatively to efficiently obtain the needed discovery. 

Case 1:19-cv-01689-JLT Document 13 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

However, the Court does not foreclose the idea that more than 10 depositions may be needed.

A mid-discovery status conference is scheduled for June 29, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. before the 

Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston, U.S. Magistrate Judge, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, 

California. Counsel SHALL file a joint mid-discovery status conference report one week before the 

conference. Counsel also SHALL lodge the status report via e-mail to JLTorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

The joint statement SHALL outline the discovery counsel have completed and that which needs to be 

completed as well as any impediments to completing the discovery within the deadlines set forth in this

order. Counsel may appear via teleconference by dialing (888) 557-8511 and entering Access Code 

1652736, provided the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the 

intent to appear telephonically no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date.

No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it 

is filed at least one week before the first deadline the parties wish to extend. Likewise, no written 

discovery motions shall be filed without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate Judge. 

A party with a discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort 

to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party 

promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be 

the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. To 

schedule this telephonic hearing, the parties are ordered to contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Susan 

Hall, at (661) 326-6620 or via email at SHall@caed.uscourts.gov. Counsel must comply with Local 

Rule 251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will be denied without prejudice and 

dropped from the Court’s calendar. 

VI. Motion re: Employer Status

The defendant SHALL file the motion re: its employer status no later than August 26, 2020,

and it will be heard on or before October 6, 2020. If the defendant determines that this motion should 

not be filed, it SHALL file a notice to this effect as soon as that information is known, but no later 

than August 26, 2020.

At least 21 days before filing the motion, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by 

telephone, to confer about the issues to be raised in the motion.

Case 1:19-cv-01689-JLT Document 13 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment where a 

question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has merit in whole 

or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of briefing; 4) narrow the 

issues for review by the court; and to 5) explore the possibility of settlement before the parties incur the 

expense of briefing a motion.

The moving party SHALL initiate the meeting. In the notice of motion, the moving party 

SHALL certify that the parties met and conferred as ordered above or set forth a statement of good 

cause for the failure to meet and confer. Failure to comply may result in the motion being stricken.

VII. Further Scheduling Conference

The Court sets a further scheduling conference on December 21, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before 

Judge Thurston at the United States Courthouse, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA. The 

parties SHALL file a joint scheduling report proposing dates for the remainder of the case no later than 

December 14, 2020.

VIII. Settlement Conference

The parties may file a joint written request for a settlement conference if they believe the action 

is in a settlement posture and a conference with the Court would be fruitful. The parties shall include 

proposed dates for the conference in the request. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint written 

request for referral to the Court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program. 

iX. Compliance with Federal Procedure

All counsel SHALL familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California, and to keep abreast of any amendments 

thereto. The Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to efficiently handle its 

increasing case load, and sanctions will be imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of 

California.

XI. Effect of this Order

The foregoing order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda 

most suitable to dispose of this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in 

Case 1:19-cv-01689-JLT Document 13 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that 

adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good 

cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines 

contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or 

declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting 

the relief requested.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01689-JLT Document 13 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 5