Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04153/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

LITTLE R ME NDE LSO N 

A PR O F E S S ION A L C O RP O R AT IO N

50 W. Sa n F ernando, 15th F loor 

Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 

408.998.4150 

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 

FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING 

ADR DEADLINE 

RICHARD A. LEASIA, Bar No. 73397 

rleasia@littler.com 

KARIN M. COGBILL, Bar No. 244606 

kcogbill@littler.com 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95113.2303 

Telephone: 408.998.4150 

Facsimile: 408.288.5686 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 

UNION NO. 3, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. C09-04153 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER MODIFYING ADR DEADLINE 

 Pursuant to Local ADR Rule 6-5 and Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff OPERATING 

ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 and Defendant CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC., 

(collectively, the “Parties”), submit this Stipulation and Proposed Order to the Court: 

STIPULATION

 WHEREAS, on December 2, 2009, the Court issued an Order Selecting ADR Process 

in the above-entitled action (“Order”); and 

 WHEREAS, the Court’s Order approved the stipulation between the Parties to 

participate in Mediation (ADR L.R. 6), and set a deadline for the Parties to hold the ADR session 

within 120 days from the date of the order, or April 1, 2010; and 

Case 3:09-cv-04153-MHP Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 3
LITTLE R ME NDE LSO N 

A PR O F E S S ION A L C O RP O R AT IO N

50 W. Sa n F ernando, 15th F loor 

Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 

408.998.4150 

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 

FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007 2. 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING 

ADR DEADLINE 

 WHEREAS, the Parties were assigned to Mediator Jean C. Gaskill and conducted an 

initial telephone conference to discuss the mediation and scheduling on January 15, 2010; and 

 WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to conduct the Mediation on March 18, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, on or about September 23, 2009, Defendant filed an unfair labor practice 

charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Plaintiff was violating the provisions 

of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §158(b)(4)(D); on October 23, 

2009, the NLRB commenced a hearing on Defendant’s charge under the provisions of Section 10(k) 

of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §160(k); and on November 30, 2009 the parties filed post-hearing briefs; and 

WHEREAS, in March 2010, the Parties requested that the ADR deadline be 

continued to June 30, 2010 to allow the Board time to issue a decision with respect to Defendant’s 

charge, which decision the Parties agreed may resolve some or all of the issues underlying this 

matter, and make its settlement or resolution more likely; and 

WHEREAS, on March 23, 2010 the Court approved the Parties’ stipulation and 

continued the deadline to complete ADR to June 30, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to conduct the Mediation on June 14, 2010; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has not yet issued a decision with respect to Defendant’s 

charge, and it is uncertain at this time when said decision will issue; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties continue to believe that the Board’s decision will have an 

effect on the merits of the instant action, and may resolve certain issues in the present matter, and 

therefore believe that it would be beneficial for settlement purposes if the Parties wait to attend 

mediation until the Board renders its decision; and

 WHEREAS, for good cause, to promote resolution of this matter and ensure a more 

productive Mediation of this matter, and to avoid the possibility of duplicative and inconsistent 

proceedings, the Parties jointly request an extension to participate in Mediation until 60 days after 

the Board issues a decision with respect to Defendant’s charge; 

 NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their respective undersigned 

counsel, stipulate and request that the Court approve a revised deadline for the Parties to comply 

with its Order, and direct that they participate in and complete the directed ADR proceedings within 

Case 3:09-cv-04153-MHP Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 3
LITTLE R ME NDE LSO N 

A PR O F E S S ION A L C O RP O R AT IO N

50 W. Sa n F ernando, 15th F loor 

Sa n Jose , C A 95113.2303 

408.998.4150 

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 

FIRMWIDE:95633258.1 057492.1007 3. 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING 

ADR DEADLINE 

60 days after the Board serves its decision with respect to Defendant’s charge. Defendant shall 

notify the Court and the ADR Unit once a decision has been rendered by the Board and will 

coordinate with Plaintiff’s counsel and Mediator Gaskill to schedule Mediation. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: May 27, 2010 

/s/Richard A. Leasia 

RICHARD A. LEASIA 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO., INC. 

Dated: May 31, 2010 

/s/Michael D. Nelson 

MICHAEL D. NELSON 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. NELSON 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION 

NO. 3 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________________ _______________________________ 

 Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel 

 United States District Court Judge 

6/3/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-04153-MHP Document 20 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3