Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00697/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00697-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

The Court ordered a further scheduling conference to occur on May 12, 2016. (Doc. 37) 

Though counsel failed to appear, they did submit a joint status report.1 (Doc. 40) The report indicates 

that Plaintiff wish to have the legal issue—whether they are entitled to double time for overtime as 

provided by Wage Order 9—as soon as possible. Id. at 2. They propose that the parties file their 

dispositive motions on this topic by June 1, 2016. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs report that this “is not a large 

dollar case” (Id. at 2.) and, if true, there is good reason not to delay the determination in terms of the 

waste of resources.

Defendants oppose the request to advance the filing of the motion and assert that doing so 

“would deprive Defendants of a fair opportunity to prepare and file the dispositive motions it 

 

1 The Court has been advised that this was not due to willfulness but through a lack of understanding as to how the 

Court manages telephonic appearances. Oddly, however, counsel appeared telephonically previously using the 

CourtCall service (Doc. 15), and this same method for appearances was expressly authorized by the Court when it set 

the further status conference. (Doc. 37)

RONNY FERGUSON and ROGER 

MOELLMAN, individually and 

on behalf of others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY’S TRUCKING, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:15-CV-00697 -JLT

ORDER AFTER FURTHER SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

Pretrial Conference: 12/19/2016

Trial: 2/21/2017

Case 1:15-cv-00697-JLT Document 42 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

anticipates would resolve this case without need for trial.” (Doc. 40 at 3) Exactly why Defendants 

cannot file such a limited dispositive motion more quickly than four months is not explained. The 

Court speculates that Defendants may need further discovery before they believe they can file a 

meritorious motion or are devoting their efforts to other cases.

In any event, the fact that the motion is potentially dispositive does not mean that Plaintiffs 

cannot raise it themselves in an earlier motion for summary adjudication. Indeed, Plaintiffs have as 

must reason to do seek a determination of this legal question as Defendants, maybe more so. 

Moreover, the deadline currently in place does not require a party to delay filing a dispositive motion; it 

merely sets the outermost date upon which they can timely do so. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The case schedule is amended as follows:

a. The pretrial conference will be held on December 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.;

b. The trial will be held on February 21, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.;

c. No other changes to the case schedule are authorized. However, Plaintiffs are 

strongly encouraged to file their motion for summary adjudication as to the legal question at 

issue as soon as possible for the reasons they set forth in the joint statement and discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00697-JLT Document 42 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2