Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03035/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03035-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gina McKeen-Chaplin
Plaintiff
Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINA McKEEN-CHAPLIN, MONICA 

ALVAREZ, SUSAN CLAYTON, KAREN 

HONOUR, ANNA NEAL, JAMES 

PERRY, CARMEN PHAN, RANDALL 

STEWART, and KRISTI SUAREZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK, FSB,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-03035-GEB-AC

ORDER VACATING FINAL PRETRIAL 

ORDER AND AMENDING STATUS ORDER 

On June 30, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion, 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 1, in which they 

request the Court “permit[] supplemental briefing on the Parties’ 

cross motions for summary judgment[,]” and “reconsider its order 

on the Parties’ cross motions for summary judgment with the 

benefit of the Parties’ supplemental briefing and in light of the 

fact that the trial of this matter will be a nonjury trial.1” 

(Joint Mot. 2:4-8, ECF No. 94 (citations omitted).) 

“Specifically, the Parties propose to submit supplemental briefs 

of seven pages or fewer (plus any supplemental exhibits) on or by 

July 24, 2015, and four page reply briefs on or by July 31, 

2015.” (Id. at 4:4-6.) The parties further request “that the 

 

1 On June 26, 2015, the parties filed under Rule 39(a)(1) a Joint 

Stipulation for Non-Jury Trial. (ECF No. 93.)

Case 2:12-cv-03035-MCE-AC Document 95 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Court continue the August 11 trial date for 60 days to allow the 

Court to hear and rule on summary judgment.” (Id. at 4:8-9.) The 

parties argue in support of their motion as follows: 

Because the parties have waived a jury 

trial by stipulation, this case is now set to 

be tried to the Court. In the interest of a 

“just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of 

this Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Parties 

respectfully request that the court 

reconsider the Parties’ motions for summary 

judgment with the benefit of additional 

briefing. The . . . Parties agree that there 

are significant material facts over which 

there are no disputes; the Court’s order 

denying the Parties’ cross motions for 

summary judgment identifies a host of 

undisputed material facts. The Parties 

respectfully submit that there are one or 

more legal issues which can and should be 

resolved based on the undisputed material 

facts in the record, and that a ruling on 

these issues prior to trial will 

significantly limit scope of witness 

testimony and documentary evidence needed for 

the trial of this action, if not eliminate 

the need for a trial altogether.

For example, the Court’s analysis of the 

second prong of the administrative exemption 

(work directly related to Provident’s 

management or general business operations) 

does not identify any disputed material 

facts. And yet the Court made no ruling as to 

whether the undisputed facts were sufficient 

for Provident to carry its burden on this 

prong of the exemption. Without additional 

guidance from the Court, the Parties will 

inevitably present these and similar 

undisputed facts to the Court, in a bench 

trial, through a series of witnesses and 

documents, and then ask the Court to reach a 

legal conclusion the parties believe can and 

should be made now.

The Court also denied Provident’s motion 

on the third prong of the exemption (exercise 

of discretion and independent judgment). As 

with the second prong, a clear ruling as to 

the sufficiency or insufficiency of the 

undisputed material facts, and a demarcation 

of the disputed facts left for trial, could 

significantly narrow the factual issues to be 

Case 2:12-cv-03035-MCE-AC Document 95 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 3
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

presented regarding the third prong, if not 

eliminate the need for a trial altogether. 

The Parties respectfully submit that 

resolving these issues on summary judgment, 

rather than through live witnesses in a bench 

trial, will promote judicial economy.

(Id. at 3:4-28 (citations omitted).)

In light of the parties’ Joint Motion and Joint 

Stipulation for Non-Jury Trial, the Final Pretrial Order filed on 

May 15, 2015, is vacated, and the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 

Order filed on November 19, 2013, is amended as follows: 

The parties’ supplemental briefing schedule on the 

referenced cross motions for summary judgment is adopted as 

follows: supplemental briefs of seven pages or fewer (plus any 

supplemental exhibits) shall be filed no later than July 24, 

2015, and any reply briefs of four pages or fewer shall be filed 

no later than July 31, 20152; the hearing on the motions is 

scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on August 11, 2015; a final 

pretrial conference is scheduled in courtroom 10 at 11:00 a.m. on 

October 19, 2015; the parties shall file a further JOINT pretrial

statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the 

final pretrial conference; and trial commences at 9:00 a.m. on 

December 1, 2015, in courtroom 10.

Dated: July 7, 2015

 

2 The deadline prescribed in the Status Order to complete all other 

law and motion remains unchanged. 

Case 2:12-cv-03035-MCE-AC Document 95 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 3