Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00871/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00871-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TIME 

TO ANSWER OR PLEAD TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00871-OWW 

10165186.1 

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 

Robert K. Carrol, State Bar No. 81277 

J. Thomas Trombadore, State Bar No. 136244 

NIXON PEABODY LLP

Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3996 

Telephone: (415) 984-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8300 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative and 

Sun Pacific Farming Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TOMAS BRAN, on behalf of himself and a class 

of others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SUN PACIFIC FARMING COOPERATIVE, a 

California Corporation; SUN PACIFIC 

FARMING CO., form unknown; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:06-CV-00871-OWW-TAG 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE TIME TO ANSWER OR 

PLEAD TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Courtroom 3 

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD IN THIS 

ACTION: 

I. 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, all parties by and through their counsel have agreed good causes exists to 

extend until Thursday November 16, 2006, the time for Defendants to answer plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint (hereafter “complaint”) recently filed and served in this action on October 13, 

2006, in response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss previously set for an October 30, 2006 hearing 

and now off calendar; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00871-LJO -JLT Document 28 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TIME 

TO ANSWER OR PLEAD TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00871-OWW 

-2- 10165186.1 

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 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to continue the hearing date for two weeks; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto through 

their respective attorneys of record as follows: 

1. Good cause exists to order an extension of time until November 16, 2006 for 

defendants to answer or otherwise plead to the FAC and the parties to this action hereby ask the 

Court to order it for each of the following reasons, each of which constitute good cause to do so. 

2. Defendants timely filed a motion dismiss plaintiff Tomas Bran’s original complaint in 

this action (hereafter “Motion”). The motion was set for an October 30, 2006 hearing. Plaintiff Bran 

responded to the Motion on the Friday evening October 13, 2006, last week, filing a First Amended 

Complaint adding two new plaintiffs Garcia and Ayon, and dismissing his own claims completely 

and in their entirety. Last week, counsel initiated a productive meet and conferral in response to the 

claims pleaded by the new plaintiffs and that fact that the new complaint fails to address all of the 

pleading issues raised in the Motion. The parties’ joint factual investigations and conferral is ongoing 

at this time and continues to be a productive exchange of information among the parties in an effort 

to resolve remaining pleading issues and eliminate the possibility of others to productive end. 

3. A possible outcome of this exchange among counsel could be that plaintiffs may opt 

to file a further amendment to the FAC thereby obviating the need for further pleading practice or 

that defendants may elect to answer rather than refile a new motion to dismiss. 

4. The undersigned counsel for the parties agree that this investigative process and 

exchange of evidence and information should require no more than three weeks’ time to complete 

and agree that it has been and should continue to be a productive exchange well spent. All counsel 

agree that this process is productive and could obviate the need for further motion practice attacking 

the pleadings by defendants at this pleading phase of the case and controversy. 

5. Therefore, the parties by and through their respective attorneys of record agree and ask 

this Court, for the good cause demonstrated herein, to enter an order granting Defendants the 

described extension of time until November 16, 2006 to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint filed in this action. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00871-LJO -JLT Document 28 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TIME 

TO ANSWER OR PLEAD TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00871-OWW 

-3- 10165186.1 

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 

DATED: October 23, 2006 MCNICHOLAS & MICNICHOLAS LLP 

 By: /s/ Matthew S. McNicholas 

 (Authorized October 23, 2006) 

 Matthew S. McNicholas 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DATED: October 23, 2006 NIXON & PEABODY LLP 

 By: /s/ J. Thomas Trombadore 

 J. Thomas Trombadore 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

II. 

ORDER 

Good Cause exists to grant the foregoing Stipulation of the parties in light of the foregoing 

recitals of counsel. Therefore, the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties is hereby ordered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 OLIVER W. WANGER 

Judge of the United States District Court 

Eastern District of California 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00871-LJO -JLT Document 28 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 3