Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00591/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00591-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Parra; Gonzalo Estrada; )

and Aurelia Martinez )

 )

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV-02-0591-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Bashas’, Inc. )

)

Defendant. )

 )

 

Currently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ “Request to

Set Status Conference[.]” Doc. 269. Also pending before the court

is defendant Bashas’, Inc. “Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending

Petition for Writ of Certiorari or, in the Alternative, Motion to

Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Request to Set Status

Conference[.]” Doc. 270. 

Background

In Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975 (9 Cir. 2008) th

(“Parra II”), the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded this court’s

Case 2:02-cv-00591-DJH Document 273 Filed 12/31/08 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

class certification order, Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 2005 WL 6182338

(D.Ariz. Aug. 29, 2005) (“Parra I”), as it pertained to plaintiffs’

discriminatory pay claim. On September 12, 2008, the Ninth Circuit

denied the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for

rehearing en banc. Doc. 267-2. The Ninth Circuit’s mandate

issued on September 25, 2008 (doc. 267), thereby restoring

jurisdiction to this court. See Sgaraglino v. State Farm Fire and

Cas. Co., 896 F.2d 420, 421 (9 Cir. 1990) (defining the “issuance th

of the mandate” as “return[ing] [the case] to the district court’s

jurisdiction[]”).

Two months later, plaintiffs filed a request for a status

conference “in order to reopen discovery” and to have this court

“set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification of their Equal Pay Claim.” Request (doc. 269) at

2:1-3. Given that discovery has been closed since April 2004,

plaintiffs purportedly “need to obtain updated discovery concerning

the status of defendant’s pay policy and its impact on the putative

class.” Id. at 2:12-13. After the completion of such discovery,

plaintiffs intend to “file an updated motion for certification of

the equal pay claim.” Id. at 2:10. 

On December 1, 2008, in anticipation of filing a petition for

certiorari, Bashas’ filed their motion for a stay pending the

United States’ Supreme Court’s disposition of that petition.

Alternatively, Bashas’ contends that this court “should at least

grant a stay of all proceedings regarding plaintiffs’ pay claim,

and, if necessary, grant Bashas’ an extension of time to respond to

Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference, with Bashas’ response

due ten . . . days after this Court enters its order regarding

Case 2:02-cv-00591-DJH Document 273 Filed 12/31/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

[this] motion.” Reply (doc. 272) at 7:10-13. In the meantime, on

December 11, 2008, Bashas’ did file its Petition of a Writ of

Certiorari (No. 08-768). 

Discussion

I. Stay

Having considered the parties’ respective arguments as to the

necessity of a stay pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of

Bashas’ petition for certiorari, the court hereby DENIES, without

prejudice to renew, Bashas’ motion for a stay. Given the manner in

which this litigation will be proceeding for the foreseeable

future, the court finds that Bashas’ has not met its burden of

showing the necessity for a stay at this juncture. 

II. Extension of Time

Given the denial of Bashas’ stay motion, the court hereby

GRANTS Bashas’ motion for alternative relief. More specifically,

Bashas’ has until January 13, 2009, by which to file and serve its

response to plaintiffs’ “Motion to Set Status Conference” (doc.

269). Plaintiffs’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served in

accordance with LRCiv 7.2(d). 

III. Status Conference

The court hereby conditionally GRANTS plaintiffs’ “Request to

Set Status Conference” (doc. 269). Such Status Conference shall be

held, if at all, on February 2, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., at the District

Court of the United States for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day

O’Connor Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona,

6 Floor, Courtroom 606. This stay is subject to being vacated, th

however, in the event the court ultimately determines that a status

conference at that point is unnecessary. 

Case 2:02-cv-00591-DJH Document 273 Filed 12/31/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs’ “Request to Set Status Conference” (doc. 269)

is GRANTED in accordance with the terms set forth in the preceding

paragraph; and 

(2) Defendant’s motion (doc. 270) is DENIED without prejudice

to renew insofar as it is seeking a stay, but is GRANTED, as set

forth above, to the extent defendant is seeking an extension of

time in which to respond to plaintiffs’ “Request to Set Status

Conference[.]”

DATED this 31 day of December, 2008. st

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:02-cv-00591-DJH Document 273 Filed 12/31/08 Page 4 of 4