Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

- 1 - 1141

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-4069 SI) 

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

PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 107713) 

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES 

The Latham Square Building 

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 1450 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 452-0292 

Facsimile: (510) 452-5625 

HOWARD MOORE, JR. (STATE BAR NO. 55228) 

MOORE AND MOORE 

445 Bellevue Avenue, Second Floor 

Oakland, CA 94610 

Telephone: (510) 451-0104 

Facsimile: (510) 451-5056 

Attorneys For Plaintiff 

MOYSE HOWARD, JR. 

MICHAEL CHRISTIAN (STATE BAR NO. 173727) 

SCOTT OBORNE (STATE BAR NO. 191257) 

JANINE R. HUDSON (STATE BAR NO. 206671) 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

199 Fremont Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 394-9400 

Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 

Attorneys For Defendants 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, STEVE SHELTON, 

PATSY HALL, JOE DEELY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MOYSE HOWARD, JR. 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, STEVE 

SHELTON, PATSY HALL, JOE DEELY and 

DOES 1 through 15 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. NO. C05-4069 SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULING ORDER

[FRCP Rule 16, L.R. 16-2(d)]

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 59 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 60 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 4
 - 2 - 1141

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-4069 SI) 

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

WHEREAS, while Plaintiff Moyse Howard, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Defendant Amtrak”), Steve Shelton, Patsy Hall, and Joe Deely 

(“Defendants”) have expressed a mutual desire to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of 

this dispute, the Parties agree that additional time is needed to complete the discovery necessary to 

engage in a meaningful and productive mediation; 

WHEREAS, trial of the within matter is currently set for March 5, 2007; 

WHEREAS, on November 13, 2006, though the Court granted the Parties’ request by 

Stipulation for an Order extending the dispositive motion filing deadline until December 27, 2006, 

non-expert discovery cutoff until December 18, 2006, and the mediation deadline until December 20, 

2006, the Parties are unable to meet the current pretrial deadlines—and, by extension, are unable to 

meet the current trial deadline—because of the following circumstances: (1) The unanticipated 

departure from Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm of the associate assigned primary responsibility for preparing 

this case for trial; (2) Delays resulting from a current dispute about rescheduling depositions; and (3) 

The multiple trials set for early 2007 on Plaintiff’s counsel’s trial calendar; 

WHEREAS, though P. Bobby Shukla was the Price And Associates associate who had 

been assigned primary responsibility for trial preparation in this case, Ms. Shukla’s employment with 

Price And Associates ended on November 20, 2006; 

WHEREAS, Ms. Shukla’s unanticipated departure from Price And Associates has 

created a severe staffing shortage, placing a tremendous strain on the limited resources of this small 

firm, now struggling to fill the void left by Ms. Shukla’s departure, not only in connection with this 

case, but also in connection with a number of others for which she was also assigned primary 

responsibility; 

WHEREAS, Price And Associates’ staffing challenges have been compounded by the 

fact that, at or around the same time as Ms. Shukla departed, the firm suffered the temporary loss of a 

paralegal who took bereavement leave for approximately three weeks due to the sudden death of her 

mother in Los Angeles; 

WHEREAS, although the Parties have completed special interrogatories, requests for 

admissions, and requests for production of documents, and have conducted some depositions, several 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 59 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 60 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 4
 - 3 - 1141

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-4069 SI) 

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

previously scheduled key depositions have been cancelled, and the Parties are engaged in diligent 

efforts to meet and confer to reschedule these depositions; 

WHEREAS, delays in rescheduling these depositions have occurred in part due to a 

current dispute about the order of priority of the rescheduled depositions, a dispute which the Parties 

are optimistic they will be able shortly to resolve by agreeing upon a firm schedule of depositions; 

WHEREAS, the delay in resolving the dispute and rescheduling the depositions has 

also occurred in part due to the staffing challenges faced by Price And Associates; 

WHEREAS, the firm’s staffing challenges are exacerbated by the grueling trial 

calendar of Pamela Y. Price, lead counsel for Plaintiff; 

WHEREAS, Ms. Price is currently in trial in this Court in Walker v. Contra Costa,

Case Number C 05-2800 TEH; 

WHEREAS, additionally, on January 2, 2007, Ms. Price is set for trial in Underwood 

v. California Department of Corrections, Solano County Superior Court Case No. FCS022899, on 

January 8, 2007 in this Court in Hardeman v. Amtrak, Case No. C 04-3360 SI, and on January 30, 

2007 in this Court in Lazcano v. United States Postal Services, Case No. C 05-3396 WHA; 

WHEREAS, it is further noted that Ms. Price will be unavailable during the first half 

of May, 2006 due to her son’s wedding and younger daughter’s graduation from college in 

Washington D.C. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS 

FOLLOWS: 

1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16 and Local Rule 16-2 (d), 

the foregoing constitutes the requisite good cause to request modification of the Case Scheduling 

Order; 

2. The Parties propose the following revised case management schedule: Trial, 

May 28, 2006; Final Pretrial Conference, May 15, 2007; Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline, March 

7, 2007; and Expert and Non-Expert Discovery Completion Deadline, February 14, 2007; and 

Mediation Deadline, February 28, 2007. 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 59 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 3 of 4

29

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 60 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 4
 - 4 - 1141

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (C05-4069 SI) 

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

 

DATED: December 12, 2006 

DATED: December 12, 2006 

 /s/ 

PAMELA Y. PRICE 

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MOYSE HOWARD 

 /s/ 

SCOTT OBORNE 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, STEVE SHELTON, 

PATSY HALL, JOE DEELY 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________________ _____________________________________ 

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 59 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 60 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 4