Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 

Case No. C05 00829 JW (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING 

PA/52194577.1/3003187- 0000313787PA/52194551.1/3003187-0000313787 

Bingham McCutchen LLP 

WENDY M. LAZERSON (SBN 97285) 

CAROLYN B. HALL (SBN 212311) 

1900 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 

Telephone: (650) 849-4400 

Facsimile: (650) 849-4800 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. 

and GEORGE WESTON BAKERIES, INC. 

IRA SPIRO (SBN 67641) 

DENNIS F. MOSS (SBN 77512) 

Spiro Moss Barness and Barge LLP 

11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90064 

Telephone: (310) 235-2468 

Facsimile: (310) 235-2456 

E-mail:ispiro@smbhblaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THOMAS LEONARD, CHARLIE BRADARIC, 

GARY HOSKINS, LARRY BRIAN NEWMAN, 

JR., CHRIS HERR, and WILLIAM F. 

HARRISON, each of them individually, and on 

behalf of: all others similarly situated, the general 

public, and similarly situated current and former 

employees of Defendants., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., BESTFOODS 

BAKING COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendants. 

No. C05 00829 JW (HRL) 

CLASS ACTION AND FLSA 

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

Magistrate Judge: Howard R. Lloyd 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION TO 

COMPEL HEARING 

Complaint filed: February 25, 2005 

*E-filed 1/8/07*

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 188 Filed 01/08/07 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 

2 Case No. C05 00829 JW (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING

PA/52194577.1/3003187- 0000313787PA/52194551.1/3003187-0000313787 

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Thomas 

Leonard et al. and Defendants Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and George Weston Bakeries, Inc. 

(together, “the Parties”), respectfully request that the Court permit the parties to continue the 

hearing date for Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Plaintiffs’ First Requests for 

Admission and Plaintiffs’ accompanying motion for attorneys’ fees, currently calendared for 

January 9, 2007, by one week, to January 16, 2007. The Parties also respectfully request that the 

Court permit the parties to continue the hearing date for Defendants’ motion for attorneys fees 

incurred in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, currently calendared for January 23, 2007, by 

one week, to January 30, 2007. It is Plaintiffs’ position that the motion to compel is important 

for Plaintiffs to obtain discovery in order to brief cross motions for summary judgment, and thus, 

as Plaintiffs’ condition to entering into this stipulation, the Parties have agreed not to file any 

such motion or motion for partial summary judgment before January 23, 2007, one week after 

the presently planned filing date. 

The Parties request that the Court grant the foregoing continuances because the 

Parties believe that they will be able to resolve the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

(and the companion attorneys’ fees motions) if they have one additional opportunity to meet and 

confer. The Parties conferred by telephone this morning, January 8, 2007, and expressed 

agreement that such a resolution is likely possible and would be beneficial for all parties. 

However, because Plaintiffs’ lead attorney is unavailable to meet and confer today due to illness, 

the Parties require a short continuance of the hearing date to afford them time to meet and confer, 

and expressed agreement regarding the January 23 filing of motions for summary judgment and 

partial summary judgment. Permitting this brief one-week continuance will enable the Parties to 

work toward resolving the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion. If the Parties are successful in their 

efforts to meet and confer, the result will be that the Parties will no longer require a hearing on 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, or Defendants’ motion for 

attorneys’ fees. Declaration of Carolyn Hall, filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-12 (“Hall 

Decl.”), ¶ 2. 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 188 Filed 01/08/07 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 

3 Case No. C05 00829 JW (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING

PA/52194577.1/3003187- 0000313787PA/52194551.1/3003187-0000313787 

The Parties have requested no previous continuances of Plaintiffs’ motion to 

compel or the companion attorneys’ fees motions. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-12, all other 

previous time modifications and the effect that the requested continuance would have on this 

action are set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Carolyn Hall. 

STIPULATION

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED by Plaintiffs and Defendants, being all 

parties of record to this action, that, based on the above stated facts and subject to the Court’s 

approval, the Court order as follows: 

1. The hearing date for Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to 

Plaintiffs’ First Requests for Admission and Plaintiffs’ accompanying motion for attorneys’ fees 

shall be continued by one week, to January 16, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. If the Parties are able to 

resolve the issues that give rise to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel prior to the hearing date, 

Plaintiffs shall promptly request that the hearings on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and motion for 

attorneys’ fees be taken off calendar. 

2. The hearing date for Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in 

opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to compel shall be continued by one week, to January 30, 2007. 

Accordingly, Defendants shall file their reply brief in support of their motion for attorneys’ fees 

on January 16, 2007. If the Parties are able to resolve the issues that give rise to Plaintiffs’ 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 188 Filed 01/08/07 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 

4 Case No. C05 00829 JW (HRL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING

PA/52194577.1/3003187- 0000313787PA/52194551.1/3003187-0000313787 

motion to compel prior to the hearing date, Defendants shall promptly request that the hearing on 

Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees be taken off calendar. 

DATED: January 8, 2007 Bingham McCutchen LLP 

By: /s/ 

Carolyn B. Hall 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Spiro Moss Barness and Barge LLP 

By: /s/ 

Ira Spiro 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Proposed] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 THE HONORABLE HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

1/8/07

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 188 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 4