Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00996/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00996-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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 Order (2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB) 

KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California 

MARC A. LEFORESTIER 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

JOHN W. KILLEEN, State Bar No. 258395 

Deputy Attorney General (attorney for notice) 

1300 I Street, Suite 125 

P.O. Box 944255 

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

Telephone: (916) 445-1968 

Fax: (916) 324-8835 

E-mail: John.Killeen@doj.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Kamala Harris, Christine Baker, 

Diane Ravnik, and Matt Rodriquez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNICO MECHANICAL CORP, a 

California corporation, and ALFRED 

CONHAGEN, INC. OF CALIFORNIA, a 

California Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of 

California; CHRISTINE BAKER, in her 

official capacity as the Director of the 

California Department of Industrial 

Relations; DIANE RAVNIK, in her official 

capacity as the Chief of the California 

Division of Apprenticeship Standards; and 

MATT RODRIQUEZ, in his official 

capacity as California Secretary for 

Environmental Protection, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

ESTABLISHING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Date: November 15, 2016 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: 6, 14th Floor 

Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez 

Trial Date: None Set 

Action Filed: 5/7/2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 54 Filed 09/09/16 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 

1

Stipulation and Order (2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 230, all parties to this case hereby stipulate and request that the 

Court approve the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, filed 

on September 7, 2016, and set for hearing on November 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.: 

Plaintiffs’ motion was filed on September 7, 2016. 

Defendants’ oppositions to the motion and any cross-motions for summary judgment must 

be served and filed on or before October 11, 2016. 

Plaintiffs’ replies to Defendants’ oppositions and Plaintiffs’ opposition to any crossmotions must be served and filed on or before November 1, 2016. 

Defendants’ replies in support of any cross-motion must be served and filed on or before 

November 8, 2016. 

The Parties stipulate and agree that they met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs’ motion on 

August 25, 2016. The Parties further stipulate and agree that, during the proposed briefing 

schedule, they will not propound additional discovery. 

As provided for in Local Rule 230(e), notwithstanding this stipulation, should Defendants 

file any cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs reserve their rights to request that the 

Court modify the briefing schedule and “continue the hearing on the original and all related 

motions so as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file oppositions and replies to 

all pending motions.” Plaintiffs will meet and confer with Defendants prior to making such a 

request. 

Good cause exists for this briefing schedule because counsel for Defendant State Building 

and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO, will be out of the country for several 

weeks in early September. And counsel for Defendants Harris, Baker, Ravnik, and Rodriguez 

will be out of the office on family leave for several weeks in early October. Moreover, providing 

extra time for the parties to incorporate cross-motions into the schedule will reduce the burden on 

the Court and the parties. 

Accordingly, the parties request that the Court approve the briefing schedule. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 54 Filed 09/09/16 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 

2

Stipulation and Order (2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB) 

Dated: September 7, 2016 

 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By 

/s/ Jonathan P. Barker (signature used by permission 

granted September 7, 2016) 

 RONALD J. HOLLAND 

ELLEN M. BRONCHETTI 

JONATHAN P. BARKER 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Unico Mechanical Corp. and 

Alfred Conhagen, Inc. of California

Dated: September 7, 2016 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of California 

MARC A. LEFORESTIER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

/s/ John W. Killeen__________ 

JOHN W. KILLEEN

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Kamala Harris, Christine 

Baker, Diane Ravnik, and Matt Rodriquez 

Dated: September 7, 2016 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 

 

/s/ Zoe M. Palitz (used by permission 

granted September 7, 2016) __________ 

SCOTT A. KRONLAND

ZOE M. PALITZ

Attorneys for State Building and 

Construction Trades Council of California, 

AFL-CIO 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 54 Filed 09/09/16 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 

3

Stipulation and Order (2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB) 

ORDER 

Good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that for Plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment scheduled to be heard on November 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.: 

Defendants’ oppositions to the motion and any cross-motions for summary judgment must 

be served and filed on or before October 11, 2016. 

Plaintiffs’ replies to Defendants’ oppositions and Plaintiffs’ opposition to any crossmotions must be served and filed on or before November 1, 2016. 

Defendants’ replies in support of any cross-motion must be served and filed on or before 

November 8, 2016. 

As provided for in Local Rule 230(e), notwithstanding this stipulation, should Defendants 

file any cross-motions for summary judgment, Plaintiffs reserve their rights to request that the 

Court modify the briefing schedule and “continue the hearing on the original and all related 

motions so as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file oppositions and replies to 

all pending motions.” Plaintiffs will meet and confer with Defendants prior to making such a 

request. 

IF DEFENDANTS’ FILE A CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THE 

COURT MAY VERY LIKELY CONTINUE THE NOVEMBER 15, 2016 HEARING 

DATE. OTHERWISE THE STIPULATION IS APPROVED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 8, 2016 /s/ JOHN A. MENDEZ

 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SA2015103576 

Case 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Document 54 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 4