Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03781/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03781-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Adams, et al. v. City of Walnut Creek

Extending Time C 05-03781 MEJ

DAVID P. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 57721)

DAVID E. MASTAGNI, ESQ. (SBN 204244)

WILL M. YAMADA, ESQ. (SBN 226669)

STESHA R. HODGES, ESQ. (SBN 234892)

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, 

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER 

A Professional Corporation

1912 “I” Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 446-4692

Facsimile: (916) 447-4614

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ADAMS, ERIC BALMY, JOHN

BARRIENTOS, ANDREW BROWN,

CAROL BURROUGHS, THEODORE

CHANG, STEVE CHRIST, DOMENICK

CLEMENTE, OWEN CUNNINGHAM,

SEAN DEXTER, RANDAL DICKEY,

LEWIS DOTY, JOE DUNLEAVY, STEVE

GORSKI, TRACY GURECKI, SCOTT

HANSEN, BETH HOPKINS, BRAIN

ISAACSON, BRUCE JOWER, TAMARA

KEAGY, STEWART LEHMAN,

GREGORY LEONARD, ANTHONY

MANGINI, GABRIEL MAURO, BRIAN

McCOLGIN, JAMES McMURRAY,

BARRY MLAKER, SCOTT

MOORHOUSE, JOHN RABINOWITZ,

MITCHELL J. REBELLO, STEVE

ROHWER, TERRY SCUDERO, JEFF

SLATER, BEN SMITH, MICHAEL

SUGRUE, GREG THOMPSON, BRYAN

VEVERA, PAUL WELGE acting for

themselves and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF WALNUT CREEK,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-03781 MEJ

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE EXTENDING TIME OF

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND CASE SCHEDULE

L.R. 6-2

Case 3:05-cv-03781-MEJ Document 5 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Adams, et al. v. City of Walnut Creek

Extending Time C -2- 05-03781 MEJ

1. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to the above-entitled action, by their

respective counsel, that the date of the initial case management conference as well as the case schedule set

forth in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference shall be extended.

2. Plaintiffs are required to serve at least one defendant within 120 days of the filing of the 

complaint as required in the September 17, 2004 Order Setting Case Management Conference signed by

United States Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James as well as F.R.C.P, Rule 4(m). Plaintiffs filed the

complaint on September 20, 2005 and have until January 18, 2006 to serve the complaint on at least one

defendant.

3. The Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference requires Plaintiffs to file their Case 

Management Statement, Rule 26(f) Report on January 12, 2006. This date is prior to the date Plaintiffs are

required to serve Defendant. The Summons in a Civil Case dated September 20, 2005, issued by Mary Ann

Buckley, Deputy Clerk requires Defendant to answer the complaint within twenty (20) days of service. The

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference sets the Case Management Conference on January 19,

2006. This date is prior to the date Defendant is required to answer the complaint. 

3. There have been no previous time modifications to this case.

4. Modification of the schedule will enable Plaintiffs to serve the complaint in the one hundred 

twenty (120) days time period allotted by this court and the Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

to serve Defendant the complaint. Modification of the schedule will also give Defendant twenty (20) days to

answer the complaint pursuant to the Summons.

5. The requested time modification will minimally effect the schedule of the case, postponing the 

dates of the Case Management Conference and the date the Initial Case Management Statement until after

the Complaint has been served and the answer has been filed.

6. The parties therefore request that the Case Management Conference Statement be due sixty 

(60) days after the Defendant files the answer to the complaint.

Case 3:05-cv-03781-MEJ Document 5 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Adams, et al. v. City of Walnut Creek

Extending Time C -3- 05-03781 MEJ

MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK,

MILLER, JOHNSEN & UHRHAMMER

Dated: December 14, 2005

By: /s/ David E. Mastagni

DAVID E. MASTAGNI,

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: December 14, 2005

By: /s/ Thomas Haas

THOMAS HAAS,

Attorney for Defendant

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time of Initial Case Management Conference and

Case Schedule Is Hereby Adopted by the Court for the Case and the Parties Are Ordered to Comply with

this Order.

Dated: ___________ _________________________________________________

HONORABLE MARIA-ELENA JAMES

December 15, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Maria-Elena James

Pursuant to the stipulation, the Court hereby reschedules the CMC to March 2, 2006, 

at 10:00 a.m.

Case 3:05-cv-03781-MEJ Document 5 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3