Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00319/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00319-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order 

Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

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

29

30

31

JEFFREY B. DEMAIN (SBN 126715)

EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)

P. CASEY PITTS (SBN 262463) 

Altshuler Berzon LLP

177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

jdemain@altshulerberzon.com

ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com

cpitts@altshulerberzon.com

YORK J. CHANG (SBN 220415)

ANNE M. GIESE (SBN 143934)

SEIU Local 1000

1808 14th Street

Sacramento, California 95811

Telephone: (916) 554-1279 

Facsimile: (916) 554-1292

ychang@seiu1000.org

agiese@seiu1000.org

Attorneys for Defendant 

Service Employees International Union, Local 1000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KOUROSH KENNETH HAMIDI, et al., AND 

THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT

Plaintiffs,

v.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL 

UNION, LOCAL 1000, et al.;

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ 

ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT SEIU LOCAL 

1000’S INTERROGATORIES AND 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS; ORDER THEREON

Hearing Date: N/A

Time: N/A

Courtroom: N/A

Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

Case 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN Document 47 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 4
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order 

Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

 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

29

30

31

TO THE COURT:

The parties to the above-captioned case hereby submit the following stipulations regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Answers to Defendant SEIU Local 1000’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents.

1. Plaintiffs’ Amended Answer to SEIU Local 1000’s Interrogatory No. 15 and Answers 

to SEIU Local 1000’s Interrogatories Nos. 16-33, all of which Interrogatories consist of questions 

regarding Plaintiffs’ legal contentions in the above-captioned action, were verified by Plaintiffs’ 

counsel W. James Young on Plaintiffs’ behalf, rather than personally by each of the Plaintiffs. In order 

to avoid unnecessary time and effort on the part of Plaintiffs and their counsel, the undersigned parties 

hereby stipulate that Mr. Young’s verification on behalf of Plaintiffs shall have the same effect as if 

those Answers had been verified personally by each of the Plaintiffs, and that those Answers shall be 

binding on each of the Plaintiffs to the same extent as if he or she had personally verified them under 

penalty of perjury.

2. Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their objections to Interrogatories Nos. 26-33 based on 

exceeding the number of permissible number of interrogatories, in light of the parties’ stipulation in the 

Revised Joint Status Report regarding the number of interrogatories permitted to each side. See

Docket No. 20 at 4:9-12.

3. Plaintiffs affirm and stipulate that they are not withholding any information subject to 

any of the objections they have raised to Local 1000’s Interrogatories or Requests for Production of 

Documents.

4. Plaintiffs stipulate that they are pursuing two claims in this action: (1) that the “optout” system under California law and Local 1000’s June 2013 Hudson notice, which requires 

nonmembers to notify Local 1000 of their objection to paying for non-chargeable expenses or else be 

charged the full fair share fee, and to renew annually their objection, is unconstitutional under the First 

Amendment; and (2) that Local 1000 unconstitutionally collected non-chargeable expenses from nonmembers who had objected to paying for non-chargeable expenses in response to the Union’s June 

2013 Hudson notice by charging them for a proportional share of the Union’s defense costs in Knox v. 

Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, Case No. 2:05-cv–02198 MCE KJM, and reported at 132 

Case 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN Document 47 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 4
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order 

Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

 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

29

30

31

S. Ct. 2277 (2012), in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs further stipulate that they are not

pursuing any other claims that the content of Local 1000’s June 2013 Hudson notice was 

constitutionally deficient under Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), 

i.e., a so-called “Hudson notice claim.”

5. Because Local 1000 provided Plaintiffs with several extensions of time to respond to 

its Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, it did not receive those 

Answers until after it filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition”), 

Docket No. 39, and therefore was not aware when it drafted and filed its Opposition that Plaintiffs 

were not pursuing a Hudson notice claim. For that reason, it discussed a Hudson notice claim at 

several points in that Opposition as though Plaintiffs were pursuing such a claim. So that the Court 

may be fully and accurately informed as to Local 1000’s arguments regarding the claims that Plaintiffs 

are actually seeking to litigate and as to which they request class certification, the parties hereby 

stipulate that Local 1000 may file a Supplemental Opposition of no more than three pages clarifying 

and correcting the references to a Hudson notice claim in their Opposition.

The foregoing is so stipulated and agreed between the parties to the above-captioned action, by 

among their undersigned counsel.

Dated: April 16, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY B. DEMAIN

EVE H. CERVANTEZ

P. CASEY PITTS

Altshuler Berzon LLP

YORK J. CHANG

ANNE M. GIESE

SEIU Local 1000

By: /s/ Jeffrey B. Demain 

 Jeffrey B. Demain

Attorneys for Defendant Service Employees 

International Union, Local 1000

Case 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN Document 47 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 4
Stip. Re: Pls.’ Answers to SEIU Local 1000's Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents; Order 

Hamidi, et al. v. SEIU Local 1000, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN

 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

29

30

31

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California

MARK R. BECKINGTON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

KIM L. NGUYEN

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 209524

300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Telephone: (213) 897-5677

Facsimile: (213) 897-5775

E-mail: Kim.Nguyen@doj.ca.gov

By: /s/Kim Nguyen (as authorized on April 16, 2015)

 Kim Nguyen

 

Attorneys for Defendant John Chiang, 

Controller of the State of California

W. JAMES YOUNG, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)

c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.

8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600

Springfield, Virginia 22160

(703) 321-8510

STEVEN R. BURLINGHAM, Esq.

California Bar No. 88544

Gary, Till & Burlingham

5330 Madison Avenue, Suite F

Sacramento, California 95841

Telephone: (916) 332-8122

Facsimile: (916) 332-8153

By: /s/W. James Young (as authorized on April 16, 2015) 

 W. James Young

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class They Seek to Represent

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The supplemental opposition referenced above shall be filed no 

later than MAY 4, 2015.

Dated: April 21, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-00319-WBS-KJN Document 47 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 4