Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00024/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

CASE NO. C 06 00024SBA JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

MEDIATION DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 

JONATHAN E. GERTLER (Bar No. 111531) 

jon@chavezgertler.com

JOSEPH R. IGELMUND (Bar No. 52493) 

joe@chavezgertler.com

42 Miller Avenue 

Mill Valley, CA 94941 

Tel: (415) 381-5599 Fax: (415) 381-5572

BROWNSTEIN & THOMAS, LLP 

MARK C. THOMAS (Bar No. 215580) 

mark@brownsteinthomas.com

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 876 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 951-4881 Fax: (415) 951-4885 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SHILOH HOOD 

And the Proposed Plaintiff Class 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

LEE T. PATERSON (Bar No. 81004) 

lpaterso@winston.com

AMANDA C. SOMMERFELD (Bar No. 185052) 

asommerf@winston.com

333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Tel: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHILOH HOOD, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL 

COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware limited 

partnership; and DOES 1 to 20, 

 Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C 06-00024 SBA 

The Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong 

JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST 

TO CONTINUE MEDIATION 

DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CMC Date: October 18, 2006 

CMC Time: 2:30 p.m. 

Removal Date: January 5, 2006 

Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 45 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 3

----------------

Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 46 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 3
1 

CASE NO. C 06 00024SBA JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

MEDIATION DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 parties hereby jointly stipulate and request that this Court grant a continuance of 

the mediation deadline by approximately 90 days. The parties were ordered to mediate this 

matter by the Court, and given a mediation deadline of September 29, 2006 and a Status 

Conference date of October 18, 2006. Judith Droz Keyes was duly appointed mediator in the 

instant action by this Court, and the parties have diligently undertaken to prepare this case for 

mediation under the advice and approval of the mediator, but the deadline cannot practicably 

be met. 

The parties have exchanged correspondence, and conducted meet-and-confer 

communications outlining the information necessary to engage in a meaningful mediation. 

The parties have commenced informal exchange of information and are in the process of 

attempting to negotiate the contents of a questionnaire to be sent to a sampling of class 

members in order to obtain additional information for the purposes of mediation. 

One of the reasons the initial mediation date cannot be met is that extensive 

information must be produced to facilitate successful negotiations. Some delay also has 

resulted from the development that a related action entitled Roy v. Terminix, was filed in San 

Bernardino County California, Superior Court Action No. SCVSS140622, and Terminix 

requested that the plaintiff and counsel in that matter be requested to participate in the 

mediation in this matter to determine the feasibility of the global resolution of all pending 

claims. Plaintiff’s counsel has been advised that Michael Langford, counsel in the Roy v. 

Terminix matter, has suffered the death of his father and is on brief leave from his practice, 

but that Mr. Langford and his client are agreeable to participating in the ADR preparations 

and proceedings in the instant action upon his return. 

Based on the foregoing, the parties have determined, with the mediator’s agreement, 

that it is not feasible to undertake all the activities necessary to engage in a meaningful 

mediation and to include the participation of plaintiff and counsel in the Roy matter within 

the time constraints of this Court’s prior Order setting a September 29, 2006 mediation 

deadline. The parties hereby request that this Court continue the currently scheduled 

Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 45 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 46 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 45 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 3 of 3

90 12-29 18

Case 4:06-cv-00024-SBA Document 46 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 3