Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03411/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03411-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE; 

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

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

STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540)

EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH (SBN 218029)

PEDER J. V. THOREEN (SBN 217081)

MEREDITH A. JOHNSON (SBN 291018)

REBECCA C. LEE (SBN 305119)

Altshuler Berzon LLP

177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Facsimile: (415) 362-8064

E-mail: sberzon@altber.com

 egoldsmith@altber.com pthoreen@altber.com

 mjohnson@altber.com

ROBERT J. BEZEMEK (SBN 058740)

DAVID CONWAY (SBN 253903)

Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek

A Professional Corporation

The Latham Square Building

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 936

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 763-5690

Facsimile: (510) 763-4255

E-mail: rjbezemek@bezemeklaw.com dconway@bezemeklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AFT LOCAL 2121, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ACCREDITING COMMISSION FOR 

COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING 

CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING TO 

ADVANCE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

Case 4:16-cv-03411-HSG Document 48 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 5
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE; 

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

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 REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING TO ADVANCE 

HEARING DATE

WHEREAS following Defendant ACCJC’s removal of this action to this Court, the parties 

entered into two stipulations that were approved by this Court, regarding the time for Plaintiffs to 

provide their proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to ACCJC to determine whether it 

would stipulate to the filing of the SAC, or else to file an opposition to ACCJC’s pending Motion 

to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. 8), see Dkt. 19, 21;

WHEREAS the Court issued an order on August 11, 2016 granting Plaintiffs until August 

25, 2016 to provide the SAC to ACCJC, and, if ACCJC would not stipulate to the filing of the 

SAC, ordering Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint or file their opposition to 

the pending Motion to Dismiss no later than September 9, 2016 (Dkt. 25);

WHEREAS Plaintiffs timely provided the SAC to ACCJC on August 25, and ACCJC 

subsequently informed Plaintiffs that it would not stipulate to the filing of the SAC;

WHEREAS this Court had initially set a Case Management Conference for September 27, 

2016 when the matter was assigned to this Court (Dkt. 16);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Case Management Order (Dkt. 16), the parties met and 

conferred in advance of filing a Joint CMC statement on September 1, 2016, and in that meet-andconfer agreed that if the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, 

Plaintiffs’ opposition to ACCJC’s pending Motion to Dismiss would be due seven days after the 

Court’s order denying the Motion for Leave to Amend, and further agreed to so notify the Court in 

the Joint CMC statement;

WHEREAS during the parties’ meet-and-confer, ACCJC’s counsel Kenneth Keller asked 

that Plaintiffs set the hearing date on their Motion for Leave to Amend sufficiently early not to 

conflict with a trial in which Mr. Keller was scheduled to participate in mid-November;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint on September 9, 

2016 (see Dkt. 30; refiled pursuant to the clerk’s directions as Dkt. 38), in accordance with the 

Court’s August 11 scheduling order (Dkt. 25), noticed the motion for the first available hearing 

date on the Court’s public law and motion calendar, which at that time was November 17, and 

apologized to Mr. Keller for being unable to select an earlier hearing date;

Case 4:16-cv-03411-HSG Document 48 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 5
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE; 

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

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 both the proposed SAC and the pending FAC concern, among other things, the 

impending decision of ACCJC in January 2017 as to the accreditation status of City College of San 

Francisco, which may result in the immediate termination of City College’s accreditation, and 

therefore Plaintiffs believe it is important to settle the pleadings promptly, and if at all possible 

before the holiday season;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ lead attorneys have significant conflicts on the November 17 

hearing date for the Motion for Leave to Amend, namely, Stephen Berzon will be recuperating 

from surgery that will take place in mid-October and has been instructed by his doctor not to return 

to work until late November, and Eileen Goldsmith is scheduled to be flying to Washington, DC,

that day for a November 18 meeting of the national board of directors of the AFL-CIO Lawyers 

Coordinating Committee, of which she is a member;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with ACCJC’s counsel regarding the 

hearing date for the Motion for Leave to Amend, and ACCJC agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’ 

request to advance the hearing date on the Motion for Leave to Amend to the Court’s law and 

motion calendar on October 27 or November 3, 2016, subject to the Court’s approval;

WHEREAS Ms. Goldsmith is further unavailable on November 10, 2016 because she will 

be arguing motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys’ fees in another 

matter in Los Angeles Superior Court on that date;

WHEREAS on September 15, 2016, the Court vacated the September 27 CMC and did not 

set a new CMC (Dkt. 43), and as a result the parties have not filed a Joint CMC statement;

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Subject to Court approval, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the 

complaint shall be advanced to October 27 or November 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter 

as is available on the Court’s calendar.

2. If the Court were to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiffs shall file 

their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the FAC no later than seven days after the Court’s order.

Case 4:16-cv-03411-HSG Document 48 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 5
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE; 

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

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: September 29, 2016 STEPHEN P. BERZON

EILEEN B. GOLDSMITH

PEDER J. V. THOREEN

MEREDITH A. JOHNSON

REBECCA C. LEE

Altshuler Berzon LLP

ROBERT J. BEZEMEK

DAVID CONWAY

Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek

By: s/ Eileen B. Goldsmith j

 Eileen B. Goldsmith

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 29, 2016 KENNETH E. KELLER

THOMAS H. SLOAN, JR.

JENNIFER R. McGLONE

ETHAN I. JACOBS

Keller, Sloan, Roman & Holland LLP

LAURENCE W. KESSENICK

SCOTT C. KESSENICK

Kessenick, Gamma & Free LLP

By: /s/ Thomas H. Sloan, Jr. Thomas H. Sloan, Jr.

Case 4:16-cv-03411-HSG Document 48 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 5
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE; 

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03411-HSG

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

ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Leave to Amend is set for November 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Dated: September 30, 2016 _____________________________________ United States District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

Case 4:16-cv-03411-HSG Document 48 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 5