Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02048/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02048-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bonnie Tyrrel
Plaintiff
Union Pacific Railroad Company
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 

 Second Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay 

Proceedings For Thirty Days

Case No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN 

Catherine S. Nasser (State Bar No. 246191)

cnasser@JonesDay.com 

JONES DAY 

555 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: +1.415.626.3939 

Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700 

*Designated as Counsel for Service 

Donald J. Munro (pro hac vice application 

forthcoming) 

dmunro@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Telephone: +1.202.879.3939 

Facsimile: +1.202.626.1700 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL ON SIGNATURE PAGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

BONNIE TYRREL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 

COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN 

SECOND JOINT STIPULATION AND 

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

FOR THIRTY DAYS 

Case 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/04/16 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 - 

Second Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay 

Proceedings For Thirty Days

Case No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN 

Plaintiff Bonnie Tyrrel and Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, hereby request 

and jointly stipulate to a second stay of all proceedings in this case for an additional period of 

thirty (30) days. 

Recitals 

WHEREAS the Court previously authorized a stay of 30 days to enable the Plaintiff and 

Defendant (collectively, “the Parties”) to attempt to negotiate a settlement; and 

WHEREAS the Parties have recently reached an agreement in principle to settle their 

dispute, and are actively engaged in negotiating and documenting the details of that agreement; 

and 

WHEREAS “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort 

for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he 

law favors and encourages compromise settlements,” Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 

47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988), and courts routinely order stays to facilitate settlement efforts. See, e.g., 

13B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2 (2009) (“[A] court may stay 

proceedings if the parties are working toward settlement . . . .”); and 

WHEREAS the Parties agree that a further stay is desirable both to enable them to 

finalize their settlement and to conserve judicial resources. See White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 

No. 06-cv-00665, 2006 WL 1409556, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2006) (“[B]ecause the parties 

appear to be in agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable, the court sees no reason 

not to exercise its inherent power to issue one.”); 

NOW, THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly stipulate that it is in 

the interests of all concerned and will promote judicial economy to continue to stay this case in its 

entirety as set forth below, or on such other terms as the Court may order: 

1. This case shall continue to be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. 

The stay shall remain in effect for a period of 30 additional days. 

2. Within the additional 30-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good 

faith to finalize their agreement in principle. 

Case 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/04/16 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 - 

Second Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay 

Proceedings For Thirty Days

Case No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN 

3. When the settlement agreement is final, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by 

filing appropriate dispositional documents. 

4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 

additional 30-day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order. 

Dated: December 30, 2015 BOHM LAW GROUP 

By: /s/ Kelsey K. Ciarimboli 

Kelsey K. Ciarimboli 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BONNIE TYRELL 

Dated: December 30, 2015 JONES DAY 

By: /s/ Catherine S. Nasser 

Catherine S. Nasser 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

Case 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/04/16 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 - 

Second Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay 

Proceedings For Thirty Days

Case No. 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN 

ORDER

 Pursuant to the joint stipulation of the Parties: 

1. This case shall be stayed and all associated dates and deadlines vacated. The stay shall 

remain in effect for a period of 30 days. 

2. Within the 30-day stay period, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to 

finalize their agreement in principle. 

3. When the settlement agreement is final, the Parties will notify the Court promptly by 

filing appropriate dispositional documents. 

 4. Should the case not be resolved, the Parties will notify the Court at the close of the 30-

day period so that the Court may issue a new scheduling order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 12/31/2015 /s/ John A. Mendez________________ 

 JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02048-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 4