Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01417/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01417-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND; 

(Proposed) ORDER ON STIPULATION [Local Rule 6-144] 

1

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

Stan S. Mallison, (SBN 184191) 

Hector R. Martinez (SBN 206336) 

LAW OFFICES OF MALLISON & MARTINEZ 

1042 Brown Avenue, Suite A 

Lafayette, CA 94549 

Telephone: (925) 283-3842 

Facsimile: (925) 283-3426 

David A. Rosenfeld (SBN 058163) 

W. Daniel Boone (SBN 046553) 

Christian L. Raisner (SBN 133839) 

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94501-1091 

Telephone: (510) 337-1001 

Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

D.M. CAMP & SONS; et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 1:05-cv-01417-FVS-SMS 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND; 

ORDER ON STIPULATION 

[Local Rule 6-144] 

CLASS ACTION

Scheduling Conference 

Date: April 11, 2006 

Time 9:15 a.m. 

Courtroom 7 

STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, the Case Scheduling Conference has been re-set for April 11, 2006; 

WHEREAS at the meet and confer on January 31, 2006 and attended by counsel for each 

party to the above-entitled action, counsel for plaintiffs stated that they intend to file a second 

amended complaint to clarify the existing pleadings and assert claims against each defendant for 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01417-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND; 

(Proposed) ORDER ON STIPULATION [Local Rule 6-144] 

2

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

penalties under Labor Code §2699; however the claims for penalties under California Labor 

Code §2699 cannot be asserted until the statutory period has expired, which period will expire at 

varying times relative to the different defendants based on the dates on which plaintiffs 

submitted formal written demands to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency 

pursuant to the applicable statutory authority, but as to all defendants the period is not expected 

to expire later than March 6, 2006; 

WHEREAS, counsel for each of the defendants indicated at the January 31, 2006 meet 

and confer session that they intend to bring motions to dismiss the first amended complaint, and , 

based on the representations of plaintiffs’ counsel regarding its contents, would move to dismiss 

the anticipated second amended complaint; 

WHEREAS, counsel for all parties do not wish to cause undue expense and consumption 

of judicial resources by the filing of motions to dismiss the first amended complaint where it is a 

certainty that plaintiffs will be filing a second amended complaint; 

WHEREAS, defendant Giumarra Vineyards Corporation is also party to another action 

pending in this Court, Valenzuela et al v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, Case No. 1:05 CV01600-FVS-SMS, which involves similar allegations, and wishes to coordinate the timing of 

proceedings in that action with those in this action; 

WHEREAS, counsel for all parties believe that a specific schedule for the filing of 

plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, the filing of defendants’ responsive motions, and the 

timing of the initial scheduling conference would be appropriate under the above described 

circumstances; 

WHEREAS, prior extensions of thirty (30) days have been granted to each defendant in 

this matter by stipulation or by order of the Court; 

WHEREAS, subject to the Court’s approval, each party through their undersigned 

attorneys stipulate as follows 

1. Plaintiffs shall file and serve the second amended complaint on the defendants by 

March 10, 2006; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01417-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND; 

(Proposed) ORDER ON STIPULATION [Local Rule 6-144] 

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

2. Defendants shall have 30 days to answer, respond or object to Plaintiffs’ second 

amended complaint. In the event defendants, or any of them, move to dismiss the second 

amended complaint, the hearing date on such motion shall be on a date convenient to the court 

following the completion of briefing on the motion(s). Plaintiffs’ opposition papers shall be filed 

and served not later than 30 days after Defendants’ service of their motion(s). Defendants’ reply 

papers shall be filed and served not later than 20 days after Plaintiffs’ service of their opposition 

papers. 

3. Plaintiffs and defendant Giumarra Vineyards Corporation shall meet and confer to 

seek to coordinate the proceedings in the Valenzuela case with this case. 

Dated: February 6, 2006 BARSIMIAN, SAQUI & MOODY 

By: /s/ Ronald H. Barsamian 

 Ronald H. Barsamian 

Attorneys for defendant D.M. Camp & Sons 

Dated: February 6, 2006 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 

By: /s/Brendan Dolan 

 Brendan Dolan 

Attorneys for defendants Mark Zaninovich and Sunview 

Vineyards 

Dated: February 6, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH C. MARKOWITZ 

By: /s/ Joseph C. Markowitz 

 Joseph C. Markowitz 

Attorneys for defendant Guimarra Vineyards Corporation 

 

Dated: February 6, 2006 ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, PLC 

By: /s/ Amy Johnson Barks 

 Amy Johnson Barks 

Attorneys for defendant El Rancho Farms 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01417-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND; 

(Proposed) ORDER ON STIPULATION [Local Rule 6-144] 

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

Dated: February 6, 2006 HOGAN & KLINGENBERGER 

By: /s/ David A. Dixon ______________________________ 

David A. Dixon 

Attorneys for Defendants Stevco, Inc. and FAL, Inc. dba 

Lucich Farms 

Dated: February 6, 2006 RYNN & JANOWSKY, LLP 

By: /s/ Marion I. Quesenbery ___________________________ 

Marion I. Quesenbery 

Attorneysfor Defendant Castle Rock Farming and Transport, 

Inc. 

Dated: February 6, 2006 WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

By: /s/ Christian L. Raisner 

 Christian L. Raisner 

Attorneys for plaintiffs 

ORDER ON STIPULATION 

The undersigned, having read and considered the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, and 

good cause appearing, the foregoing numbered paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Stipulation are 

approved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/7/2006 

By: /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

HONORABLE SANDRA M. SNYDER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

111393/410490 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01417-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 02/07/06 Page 4 of 4