Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01563-2/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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL 

LOURDES BAIZ and CHRISTIE 

GOODMAN, individuals, residing in 

California,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MM 879, INC., a corporation; BARRETT 

BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a 

corporation; SERVICEMASTER 

COMPANY LLC., a corporation; MERRY 

MAIDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a 

limited partnership; MERRY MAIDS 

LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, 

a limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 

through 98, inclusive,

Defendants.

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

ORDER ALLOWING ENLARGEMENT 

OF PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR BRIEFING 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’

SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LL, 

MERRY MAIDS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP AND MM MAIDS LLC’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL LOURDES BAIZ and CHRISTIE 

GOODMAN (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, MERRY 

MAIDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND MM MAIDS LLC (“Defendants”) through their 

undersigned counsel, have stipulated as follows:

1. Pursuant to this Court's Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order, the Court places a page 

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 111 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

limit on dispositive motions of 20 pages on all initial moving papers, and 20 pages on opposition.

2. Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Procedures, the Court has authority to 

relieve parties from the 20-page limit imposed on dispositive motions and oppositions.

3. The parties, by and through their respective counsel, agree that due to the nature and 

number of the claims at issue in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, 

Partial Summary Judgment, including disagreements over the proper application of the franchisor 

liability theory described by the Supreme Court in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal.4th 474

(2014), additional briefing beyond the limits in the Court’s Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order is 

proper and necessary to fully brief the parties’ respective facts and arguments. The parties therefore 

stipulate and agree as follows:

a) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial 

Summary Judgment may contain twenty-five (25) pages or less; and 

b) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in 

the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment may twenty-five (25) pages or 

less.

(Stipulation, ECF No. 109.)

The parties having so stipulated, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

Defendants THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, MERRY MAIDS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, AND MM MAIDS LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, 

Partial Summary Judgment may contain twenty-five (25) pages or less; and 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to that Motion may contain twenty-five (25) pages or less.

Dated: September 1, 2016

Case 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG Document 111 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2