Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01563-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

Sutton Hague 28

Law Corporation 

6715 N. PALM AVENUE

SUITE 216 

FRESNO, CA 93704

1 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS NOTICE 

S. BRETT SUTTON 143107 

JARED HAGUE 251517 

BRADY BRIGGS 310934 

SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION 

6715 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 216 

Fresno, California 93704 

Telephone: (559) 449-1888 

Facsimile: (559) 449-0177 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 

Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, 

Lourdes Baiz, and Christie Goodman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

* * * 

ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL, 

LOURDES BAIZ, and CHRISTIE 

GOODMAN, individuals, residing in 

California, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MM879, INC., a corporation; BARRETT 

BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a corporation; 

THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, 

a limited liability company; MERRY MAIDS 

LP, a limited partnership; MM MAIDS LLC, 

a limited liability company; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG 

Judge: Hon. Troy L. Nunley

CLASS ACTION 

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY 

ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS 

NOTICE; ORDER 

Action Filed: April 6, 2011 

Trial: TBD 

Plaintiffs ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL, LOURDES BAIZ, and CHRISTIE 

GOODMAN (collectively “PLAINTIFFS”), by and through their counsel of record, and 

Defendant MM879, INC. (“DEFENDANT”) (hereinafter collectively “the Parties”), by and 

through its counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 198 Filed 02/19/21 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

Sutton Hague 28

Law Corporation 

6715 N. PALM AVENUE

SUITE 216 

FRESNO, CA 93704

2 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS NOTICE 

RECITALS AND JOINT STIPULATION 

 WHEREAS, on November 25, 2020, the Court entered an order (ECF No. 191) denying 

PLAINTIFFS’ Motion for Reconsideration, thereby dismissing from the case Defendants THE 

SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, MERRY MAIDS LP, and MM MAIDS LLC; 

 WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, the Court entered an order (ECF No. 192) granting 

Defendant BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby 

dismissing from the case Defendant BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; 

 WHEREAS, on November 30, 2020, the Court entered an order (ECF No. 193) granting 

PLAINTIFFS’ Motion for Approval of Class Notice Plan, thereby establishing a timeline for the 

administration of the class notice; 

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2020, the Court entered an order (ECF No. 195) granting a 

stipulation of the Parties (ECF NO. 194) to continue the class notice administration timeline, in 

order to allow the Parties to assess the impact of the Court’s recent dismissal of several 

Defendants, and to explore potential resolutions to this matter as well as all other options for 

moving case forward; 

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2021, PLAINTIFFS filed a motion for entry of final 

judgment (ECF No. 196) as to the Court’s summary judgments in favor of Defendants THE 

SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, MERRY MAIDS LP, MM MAIDS LLC, and 

BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., to allow an immediate appeal of the summary 

judgment orders, and to stay proceedings pending the resolution of such appeal; 

WHEREAS, counsel for PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT have met and conferred in 

good faith and agree that it is in the interests of efficiency, preservation of resources, and judicial 

economy to stay administration of the class notice pending the Court’s ruling on PLAINTIFFS’ 

motion for entry of judgment, due to the stay request in that motion, as well as the possibility that 

an immediate appeal would follow the motion (if granted), and any reversal of the summary 

judgment orders would necessitate the mailing of a supplemental class notice bearing the names 

of any previously-dismissed Defendants who were brought back into the case by virtue of a 

successful appeal; 

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 198 Filed 02/19/21 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

Sutton Hague 28

Law Corporation 

6715 N. PALM AVENUE

SUITE 216 

FRESNO, CA 93704

3 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS NOTICE 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED, by and 

between PLAINTIFFS and DEFENDANT through their respective counsel, that administration 

of the class notice be STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on PLAINTIFFS’ motion for entry of 

judgment (ECF No. 196). If the Court grants PLAINTIFFS’ motion, in whole or in part, the stay 

should remain in effect pending any appeal of the final judgment entered by the Court. If the 

Court denies PLAINTIFFS’ motion, the following timeline for administration of the class notice 

should be adopted: 

DEFENDANT to provide Class List to Class 

Counsel and Notice Administrator 

14 days following entry of 

the Court’s order denying 

the motion (ECF No. 196) 

Notice Administrator to mail all notices to class 

members 

21 days following entry of 

the Court’s order denying 

the motion (ECF No. 196) 

Class Member Opt-Out Deadline 60 days after mailing of 

Class Notice 

Notice Administrator to provide list of all class 

members who did not opt out to class counsel 

75 days after mailing of 

Class Notice 

DATED: February 18, 2021 

/s/ S. Brett Sutton 

S. BRETT SUTTON

SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL,

LOURDES BAIZ, and CHRISTIE GOODMAN

DATED: February 18, 2021 

/s/ Steven R. Wainess

STEVEN R. WAINESS 

RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MM879, INC. 

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 198 Filed 02/19/21 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

Sutton Hague 28

Law Corporation 

6715 N. PALM AVENUE

SUITE 216 

FRESNO, CA 93704

4 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS NOTICE 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, and for Good Cause 

appearing, that: 

1. Administration of the class notice is HEREBY STAYED pending entry of the

Court’s order resolving PLAINTIFFS’ motion for entry of judgment (ECF No. 196); 

2. In the event that the Court grants PLAINTIFFS’ motion for entry of judgment

(ECF No. 196), in whole or in part, the stay of class notice administration shall remain in effect 

pending the resolution of any appeal of the final judgment entered by the Court; 

3. In the event that the Court denies PLAINTIFFS’ motion for entry of judgment

(ECF No. 196), the following timeline for administration of the class notice shall be followed: 

DEFENDANT to provide Class List to Class 

Counsel and Notice Administrator 

14 days following entry of 

the Court’s order denying 

the motion (ECF No. 196) 

Notice Administrator to mail all notices to class 

members 

21 days following entry of 

the Court’s order denying 

the motion (ECF No. 196) 

Class Member Opt-Out Deadline 60 days after mailing of 

Class Notice 

Notice Administrator to provide list of all class 

members who did not opt out to class counsel 

75 days after mailing of 

Class Notice 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 18, 2021 

Troy L. Nunley 

United States District Judge

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 198 Filed 02/19/21 Page 4 of 4