Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00924/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00924-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS

Catherine S. Nasser (State Bar No. 246191)

cnasser@JonesDay.com

JONES DAY

555 California Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: +1.415.626.3939

Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700

Donald J. Munro (State Bar No. 453600) (admitted pro 

hac vice)

dmunro@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: +1.202.879.3922

Facsimile: +1.202.626.1700

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND 

LOS ANGELES JUNCTION RAILWAY

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION (D/B/A AMTRAK), 

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION 

PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and 

LOS ANGELES JUNCTION RAILWAY

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR 

STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, and 

JULIE SU, in her official capacity as Labor 

Commissioner, State of California Division 

of Labor Standards Enforcement,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00924-WBS-EFB 

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND 

THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR 

ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS

Case 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-JDP Document 25 Filed 10/22/15 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 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS

Plaintiffs National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a Amtrak), BNSF Railway 

Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Los Angeles Junction Railway (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants the State of California, the State of California Division of Labor 

Standards Enforcement, and Julie Su, in her official capacity as Labor Commissioner 

(collectively, “Defendants”), hereby request and jointly stipulate to an extension of the current 

stay of all proceedings in this case for an additional period of ninety (90) days. 

Recitals

WHEREAS the Court had previously stayed proceedings to allow Plaintiffs and 

Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”) to engage in settlement discussions [Dkt. No. 23]; and

WHEREAS the Parties have made progress in their negotiations but have not yet 

completed those negotiations, and would like the opportunity to continue their discussions before 

advancing litigation further and potentially wasting judicial resources; and 

WHEREAS “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort 

for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he 

law favors and encourages compromise settlements,” Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 

47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and courts routinely order stays to facilitate settlement efforts. See, e.g., 

13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2 (2009) (“[A] court may stay 

proceedings if the parties are working toward settlement . . . .”); and

WHEREAS the Parties agree that a stay is desirable both to facilitate their ongoing 

settlement efforts and to conserve judicial resources. See White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 

06-cv-00665, 2006 WL 1409556, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (“[B]ecause the parties appear 

to be in agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable, the court sees no reason not to 

exercise its inherent power to issue one.”); 

NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly stipulate that it is in 

the interests of all concerned and will promote judicial economy to extend the stay this case in its 

entirety as set forth below, or on such other terms as the Court may order: 

Case 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-JDP Document 25 Filed 10/22/15 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 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS

1. The stay of all proceedings shall be extended for a period of 90 days beyond the 

current expiration date of October 28, 2015.

2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall continue to meet and confer in good 

faith to explore settlement.

3. Should the case be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing 

appropriate dispositional documents.

4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 90-

day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.

Dated: October 20, 2015 JONES DAY

By: /s/ Catherine S. Nasser

Catherine S. Nasser

Donald J. Munro

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NATIONAL PASSENGER RAILROAD CORPORATION,

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, UNION PACIFIC 

RAILROAD COMPANY, AND LOS ANGELES 

JUNCTION RAILWAY

Dated: October 20, 2015 KAMALA D. HARRIS 

Attorney General of California 

TAMAR PACHTER 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

By: /s/ Peter Chang (as authorized October 20, 2015)

Peter Chang 

Attorneys for Defendants

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, 

and JULIE SU, in her official capacity as Labor 

Commissioner

Case 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-JDP Document 25 Filed 10/22/15 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 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

FOR ADDITIONAL NINETY DAYS

ORDER

Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Parties:

1. The stay of all proceedings shall be extended for a period of 90 days beyond the 

current expiration date of October 28, 2015, to January 26, 2016.

2. Within the 90-day stay period, the Parties shall continue to meet and confer in good 

faith to explore settlement.

3. Should the case be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by filing 

appropriate dispositional documents.

4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 90-

day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: OCTOBER 21, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00924-KJM-JDP Document 25 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 4