Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

\ Stipulation and Order

Case 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

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

GREGORY R. OXFORD (SBN 62333)

ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD LLP

21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950

Torrance, California 90503

Telephone: (310) 316-1990

Facsimile: (310) 316-1330

goxford@icclawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Jordan L. Lurie (SBN 130013)

Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com

Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)

Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)

Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com 

Capstone Law APC

1840 Century Park East, Suite 450

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: (310) 556-4811

Facsimile: (310) 943-0396

Attorneys for Plaintiff Chris Aguilar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

CHRIS AGUILAR, individually and on 

behalf of a class of similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, GENERAL 

MOTORS COMPANY, a Delaware 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 56 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

 Stipulation and Order

 Case 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

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, the Scheduling Order entered by the Court on December 17, 2014 set 

dates, including a discovery cut-off date of September 5, 2014;

Whereas, as explained below, discovery has been delayed on both sides due to 

unforeseen events occurring after entry of the Scheduling Order, specifically as follows:

 Shortly after January 23, 2013, when defendant General Motors LLC 

(“GM”) noticed the deposition of plaintiff Chris Aguilar, Mr. Aguilar’s counsel 

learned that his client had been diagnosed with a serious illness that required 

postponement of his deposition; as a result of this illness and the ensuing treatment 

regime, GM was not able to depose Mr. Aguilar and inspect and test-drive his 

vehicle until June 3 and 4, 2014; and

 As a result of the widely-publicized ignition switch and related recalls, GM 

beginning in February and for a period of months thereafter was required to devote 

enormous resources to the gathering, review and production of documents 

requested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the U.S. 

Congress, and other government agencies; literally millions of documents were 

produced; this placed enormous demands on GM’s resources and, while some 

documents requested by plaintiff in this case have been produced, GM has not yet 

been able to gather and produce a large volume of documents requested by 

plaintiffs and in all likelihood would not be able to complete its production in this 

case prior to the current September 5, 2014 discovery cut-off;

Whereas, GM believes based on plaintiff’s recent deposition and the inspection and 

test-drive of his vehicle (a) that the steering system of plaintiff’s 2010 Chevrolet Traverse 

is functioning normally and does not have any defect, let alone a defect affecting safety 

that GM would be required to disclose under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act 

or Unfair Competition Law (First and Second Causes of Action), (b) that there also has 

not been any breach of implied warranty under California’s Song-Beverly Act or the 

federal Magnuson-Moss Act (Third and Fourth Causes of Action), and (c) that plaintiff 

has no evidence of any injury or damage suffered as the result of any alleged defect or 

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 56 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

 Stipulation and Order

 Case 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

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

breach of warranty, and therefore cannot establish essential elements of all four of his 

causes of action;

Whereas, GM therefore intends to file promptly a motion for summary judgment 

on the ground that plaintiff lacks individual standing to pursue this action and cannot 

establish essential elements of his claims for relief;

Whereas, GM believes that it should not be required during the time it will take to 

brief and obtain a ruling on its motion for summary judgment to engage in expensive and 

time-consuming document production in a case that GM contends plaintiff has no 

standing to pursue, and that discovery accordingly should be stayed pending a ruling on 

the motion for summary judgment;

Whereas, plaintiff strongly disagrees with GMs position on discovery; plaintiff 

contends that a defect does exist (as evidenced, in part, by a steering fluid leak discovered 

during GM’s vehicle inspection); plaintiff has provided a description of the alleged defect 

to GM together with a list of documents he is requesting before responding to GM’s 

motion for summary judgment and/or confirm whether the alleged defect exists; and 

plaintiff intends vigorously to oppose GM’s motion for summary judgment; 

Whereas, in order to avoid unnecessary briefing and possible proceedings under 

Rule 56(d), GM has shared with plaintiff a draft of its summary judgment motion and the 

parties have agreed to discuss, and are currently discussing, the discovery that plaintiff 

requires to prepare his opposition to the motion for summary judgment and what 

discovery GM may be willing to provide; 

Whereas, whether agreement can be reached or not, briefing on the motion and any 

related discovery will require a significant amount of time, including the possible need for 

assistance from the Magistrate Judge in resolving any discovery disputes;

Whereas, if the motion for summary judgment is denied, additional time will be 

required for the further production of documents by GM and discovery thereon that 

plaintiffs will require prior to filing the motion class certification, which is contemplated 

by the schedule set forth below; and 

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 56 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

 Stipulation and Order

 Case 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

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, the parties seek an order on this stipulation in order to accomplish the 

orderly prosecution of this matter as agreed by counsel, subject to approval of the Court;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between plaintiff and GM, by and through their 

respective undersigned counsel, that the Court may enter its order establishing a briefing 

schedule modifying the current Scheduling Order as follows:

1. The discovery cut-off date shall be continued from September 5, 2014 to 

June 5, 2015;

2. The last day to file discovery motions and other non-dispositive motions for 

hearing by Magistrate Judge Austin is continued from October 10, 2014 to July 6, 2015;

3. The date for filing plaintiff’s motion for class certification is continued from 

December 5, 2014 to September 7, 2015;

4. The date for filing defendant’s opposition to the motion for class 

certification is continued from February 5, 2015 to November 5, 2015;

5. The date for filing plaintiff’s reply to the opposition is continued from 

March 6, 2015 to December 7, 2015;

6. The date for the hearing on the motion for class certification before 

Magistrate Judge Austin is continued from April 10, 2015 to January 15, 2016 at 10:00 

a.m. or such other date and time as may be convenient to the Court’s calendar.

DATED: August 26, 2014 CAPSTONE LAW APC

By: /s/ Cody R. Padgett 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Chris Aguilar

DATED: August 26, 2014 ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD LLP

 By: /s/ Gregory R. Oxford (as authorized on 8.26.2014)

 Attorneys for Defendant General Motors LLC

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 56 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

 Stipulation and Order

 Case 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

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

The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulation. The Court adopts the hereby 

modifies the deadlines in this case as follows : 

1. The discovery cut-off date is June 5, 2015;

2. The last day to file discovery motions and other non-dispositive motions for 

hearing by Magistrate Judge Austin is July 6, 2015;

3. The date for filing plaintiff’s motion for class certification is September 7, 

2015. Depositions of expert witnesses in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class 

certification shall be completed 21 days after the filing of Defendant’s opposition;

4. The date for filing defendant’s opposition to the motion for class 

certification is November 5, 2015;

5. The date for filing plaintiff’s reply to the opposition is December 7, 2015;

6. The date for the hearing on the motion for class certification before 

Magistrate Judge Austin will be held on January 15, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. or such other 

date and time as may be convenient to the Court’s calendar.

All other orders contained in this Court’s scheduling order issued on December 17, 

2013 (Doc. 49) remain in full force and effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 56 Filed 09/02/14 Page 5 of 5