Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02198/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02198-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

Knox, et al. v. Westly, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM)

JEFFREY B. DEMAIN (SBN 126715)

PEDER J. THOREEN (SBN 217081)

Altshuler Berzon LLP

177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

jdemain@altshulerberzon.com

pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Service Employees International Union, 

Local 1000

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNE KNOX; WILLIAM L. BLAYLOCK;

EDWARD L. DOBROWOLSKI, JR.; KARYN

GIL; THOMAS JACOB HASS; PATRICK

JOHNSON; AND JON JUMPER, ON BEHALF

OF THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY

SEEK TO REPRESENT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVE WESTLY, Controller, State of

California; AND CALIFORNIA STATE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1000,

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM)

THIRD JOINT STIPULATED

REQUEST OF ALL PARTIES TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATES

PENDING RESOLUTION OF

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; ORDER THEREON

Date: N/A

Time: N/A

Judge Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Place: Courtroom 3

15th Floor

Case 2:05-cv-02198-MCE-CKD Document 138 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 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

 In November 2006, John Chiang was elected to serve as California State Controller, 1/

succeeding defendant Steve Westly. Mr. Chiang is automatically substituted as a defendant in place of

Mr. Westly, pursuant to Rule 25(d), FED.R.CIV.P. 

Knox, et al. v. Westly, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM) 1

All of the parties to the above-captioned case hereby jointly request the Court to continue the 1/

scheduled dates of 30 November 2007, for the submission of the Joint Pretrial Statement, 14 December

2007, for the Final Pretrial Conference, and 14 January 2008, for the Bench Trial (hereinafter referred to

collectively as the “Trial Dates”), pending the Court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary

judgment filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant Service Employees International Union Local 1000

(hereinafter “Local 1000"). In support of this request, the parties stipulate to the following facts, which

demonstrate good cause for their request:

1. In July 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Local 1000 filed a 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Hearing on the motions was set for 17 August 2007. 

2. On 16 August 2007, the Court issued a Minute Order submitting the parties’ pending

motions for disposition without oral argument, vacating the noticed hearing date. 

3. As of the time of this Stipulation, the parties’ motions for summary judgment remain

pending, awaiting decision by the Court. 

4. Under the current case schedule, the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement is due to be filed on

30 November 2007, the Joint Pretrial Conference is scheduled for 14 December 2007, and Bench Trial is

scheduled for 14 January 2008. See Docket No. 136 (Minute Order). 

5. For the following reasons, it is not practicable for the parties to prepare a Joint Pretrial

Statement until the pending motions are resolved, and moreover it would not serve the interests of

judicial economy for them to attempt to do so: 

(a) First, it is possible that the case may be resolved in its entirety on summary

judgment. The fact that both Plaintiffs and Local 1000 have stated to the Court that this entire

case is suitable for resolution on summary judgment is a strong indication that the case may be so

resolved without the need for a trial. In the event that the case is resolved entirely on the pending

motions, any expenditure of the parties’ time and resources to prepare a Joint Pretrial Statement

would be unnecessary. Similarly, any time that the Court would spend in reviewing such a

Case 2:05-cv-02198-MCE-CKD Document 138 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 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

Knox, et al. v. Westly, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM) 2

Statement and in conducting the Pretrial Conference would be unnecessary. Judicial economy

therefore favors awaiting the resolution of the pending motions before beginning the process of

the Pretrial Statement and Conference, and active trial preparation. 

(b) Even if the case is not fully resolved on the pending motions, their resolution will

determine the scope of the issues remaining for trial. For that reason, the parties cannot

practicably prepare a Joint Pretrial Statement until those motions are resolved. Similarly, until

the disposition of those motions is known, the parties cannot practicably prepare the Joint Pretrial

Statement – which requires them to set forth which facts are undisputed, which facts are disputed

– what exhibits will be introduced, the substance of anticipated witness testimony, etc. The

parties would simply be “operating in the dark” with regard to the Joint Pretrial Statement, until

the scope of the trial (if any trial is necessary) is revealed by the Court’s resolution of the pending

motions. 

6. As of the date of the filing of this Joint Stipulated Request, there are only thirteen days

remaining before the Joint Pretrial Statement is due to be filed. The parties agree, and respectfully

submit, that even if the Court were to issue its summary judgment ruling soon, there would not be

sufficient time remaining to prepare the required filings because the scope of those filings will be

directly affected by the Court’s disposition of the pending motions. For that reason, the parties

respectfully request the Court to continue the Trial Dates for some period certain after the Court resolves

the pending motions (the parties suggest six weeks), and vacate the 14 January 2008, Bench Trial date

(to be rescheduled in consultation with the parties), in order to permit the parties sufficient time to

prepare those filings, if necessary. 

Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing showing of good cause, which is stipulated between

them, the parties respectfully request the Court to continue the Trial Dates pending resolution of the

cross-motions for summary judgment. Additionally, to the extent that it is necessary to reschedule the

Trial Dates after resolution of the summary judgment motions (i.e., if resolution of those motions does

not dispose of the case entirely), the parties further respectfully request that the Court reschedule those

dates so that the Joint Pretrial Statement is due no earlier than six weeks after the summary judgment

Case 2:05-cv-02198-MCE-CKD Document 138 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 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

Knox, et al. v. Westly, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM) 3

ruling is issued, so that the parties may have sufficient time to prepare that Statement, and reschedule the

Bench Trial date in consultation with the parties.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY B. DEMAIN 

PEDER J. THOREEN 

Altshuler Berzon LLP

Dated: November 8, 2007. By: /s/ Jeffrey B. Demain 

 Jeffrey B. Demain

Attorneys for Defendant

Service Employees International Union, Local 1000

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

(916) 332-8122

Facsimile — (916) 332-8153

Dated: November 8, 2007. By: /s/ W. James Young (as authorized on Nov. 8, 2007)

 W. James Young

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Classes They Represent

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General

CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER,

Senior Assistant Attorney General

DOUGLAS J. WOODS (SBN 161531),

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

1301 I Street

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, California 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-4663

Fax: (916) 324-5567

Email: Douglas.Woods@doj.ca.gov

Dated: November 8, 2007. By: /s/ Douglas J. Woods (as authorized on Nov. 8, 2007)

 Douglas J. Woods

Attorneys for Defendant John Chiang

Case 2:05-cv-02198-MCE-CKD Document 138 Filed 11/09/07 Page 4 of 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

Knox, et al. v. Westly, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-2198 MCE (KJM) 4

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The previously-scheduled dates of 30 November 2007, for the submission

of the Joint Pretrial Statement, and 14 December 2007, for the Final Pretrial Conference, are hereby

vacated and continued until such later dates as shall be ordered by the Court, if necessary, after the

resolution of the pending summary judgment motions. The 14 January 2008, Bench Trial, is vacated, to

be rescheduled in consultation with the parties after resolution of the pending motions.

Dated: November 9, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02198-MCE-CKD Document 138 Filed 11/09/07 Page 5 of 5