Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00997/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00997-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Krueger
Plaintiff
Mistras Group, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell (SBN 166977)

ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

Nicole N. Coon (SBN 286283)

ncoon@schneiderwallace.com

SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400

Emeryville, CA 94608

Tel: (415) 421-7100

Fax: (415) 421-7105

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Krueger

Joseph A. Schwachter (SBN 108124)

jschwachter@litter.com

R. Keith Chapman (SBN 282331)

kchapman@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108

Tel: (415) 433-1940

Fax: (415) 399-8490

Attorneys for Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID KRUEGER, individually,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00997- JLT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 

28, 2015 SCHEDULING ORDER AND 

NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 7
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiff DAVID KRUEGER (“Plaintiff”) and 

Defendant MISTRAS GROUP, INC. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through 

their respective counsel of record, hereby submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue 

Deadlines in October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order and November 16, 2015 Minute Order. This 

Stipulation is accompanied by the proposed order set forth below, pursuant to Local Rule 143, as 

well as the supporting declaration of Attorney Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, pursuant to the Court’s 

October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order. For the reasons set forth herein and agreed upon in this 

stipulation and as supported by the accompanying declaration, good cause exists for granting the 

requested relief as required by this Court.

Specifically, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 

Whereas, on May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed in the California Superior Court for Kern County 

the above-captioned lawsuit (ECF Doc. No. 1); 

Whereas, on June 30, 2015, Defendant removed this case to the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California (ECF Doc. No. 1). The matter was originally assigned to District Judge 

Lawrence J. O’Neill;

Whereas, on July 1, 2015, the Court set this matter for an Initial Scheduling Conference on 

October 28, 2015 before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (ECF Doc. No. 2);

Whereas, in advance of the October 28, 2015 Initial Scheduling Conference, the Parties filed 

a Joint Scheduling Report for October 28, 2015 Mandatory Scheduling Conference on October 19, 

2015 (ECF. Doc. No. 6). Therein, the Parties set forth the following in relevant part: (1) the 

summary of the factual and legal contentions set forth in the pleadings of each party, including the 

relief sought by any party presently before the Court, (2) a summary detailing the uncontested and 

contested facts, (3) a summary of the legal issues as to which there is no dispute as well as a 

summary of the disputed legal issues, (4) a discovery plan, (5) settlement, and (6) whether this 

matter is related to any other pending matters; 

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 7
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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, with respect to the latter issue of related matters, the Parties noted that “[t]his case 

is related to David Krueger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mistras Group, 

Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:15-cv-01069 (filed E.D. Cal. 

Apr. 10, 2015) (“Krueger class action”), which was closed by way of a stipulated request for 

dismissal without prejudice on September 9, 2015. The Krueger class action was then consolidated 

with Edgar Viceral, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mistras 

Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:15- cv-02198 (filed 

N.D. Cal Apr. 13, 2015) (“Viceral”), a putative class and collective action alleging wage and hour 

violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code and proceeding before the 

Honorable Edward M. Chen in the Northern District of California.” The Parties further noted that 

“[t]his case is distinct from the Krueger class action and Viceral. It is an individual action, not a 

putative class action. The case also presents different factual and legal issues. This case arises from 

the alleged false misrepresentations that Defendant made to Plaintiff to induce him to move from 

North Dakota to California and the damages he has suffered as a result.” Counsel for both Plaintiff 

and Defendant in the Krueger class action are the same representative attorneys in this matter1; 

Whereas, on October 28, 2015, the Court held the scheduling conference in this matter in 

which all counsel participated (ECF Doc. No. 7). The Court issued its written scheduling order the 

same day (ECF Doc. No. 8). The October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order sets forth the following case 

deadlines:

 Pleading amendment deadline: January 25, 2016

 Discovery deadlines:

o Initial disclosures: November 17, 2015

o Mid-discovery status conference: March 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

o Non-expert discovery: July 22, 2016

o Expert discovery: October 28, 2016

 Non-dispositive motion deadlines:

 

1

Plaintiff Viceral has separate counsel: Marlin & Saltzman, LLP. 

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 7
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

o Filing: November 11, 2016

o Hearing: December 9, 2016

 Dispositive motion deadlines:

o Filing: December 30, 2016

o Hearing: February 21, 2017

 Pre-trial conference: April 12, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4

 Trial: June 6, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4;

Whereas, on November 5, 2015, the Parties each submitted their Consent to Jurisdiction of 

United States Magistrate Judge forms (ECF Doc. Nos. 9 and 10). Thereafter, on November 10, 2015, 

the case was ordered reassigned to Magistrate Judge Thurston (ECF Doc. No. 11);

Whereas, in light of the reassignment of this matter to Magistrate Judge Thurston for all 

purposes, the Court issued a minute order on November 16, 2015 resetting some of the dates in the 

October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order on Magistrate Judge Thurston’s calendar. In particular, the 

November 16, 2015 Minute Order reset the following dates:

 Pre-trial conference: April 12, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 

 Trial: June 6, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4

All other pending dates before Judge O’Neill were vacated;

Whereas, in preparation for the March 7, 2016 Mid-Discovery Status Conference, the Parties 

filed a Joint Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report on February 29, 2016 (ECF Doc. No. 13). The 

Parties confirmed the current discovery deadlines and set forth the status of discovery. At that 

juncture, the Parties had timely exchanged initial disclosures. In addition, they produced numerous 

documents in their possession to facilitate settlement negotiations. The Parties anticipated engaging 

in both formal written discovery and depositions. 

Whereas, during the progress of the matter before this Court, the Krueger class action and 

Viceral matters continued to be litigated. On November 24, 2015, the Krueger class action and 

Viceral matters were successfully joined by way of the filing of the Consolidated First Amended 

Complaint (Viceral ECF Doc. No. 38). The Parties engaged in extensive formal and informal 

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 7
5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

discovery efforts. Thereafter, the Parties agreed to participate in private mediation before mediator 

Mark Rudy on April 5, 2016. Following that date, the Parties continued settlement negotiations

facilitated by the mediator, ultimately culminating in a settlement. On May 4, 2016, the Parties filed 

a Notice of Settlement with the Court and requested a briefing schedule for approval of the 

settlement by the Court (Viceral ECF Doc. No. 59). The deadline for the approval motion to be filed

is set for the end of July; 

Whereas, the Parties are actively engaged in negotiations in an attempt to expeditiously 

settle this case. The Parties are hopeful that the matter may resolve soon;

Whereas, nevertheless, the Parties remain committed to concurrently and diligently litigating 

this case before this Court. Pursuant to the discovery deadlines set forth in the October 28, 2015 

Scheduling Order, the Parties are engaging in formal discovery efforts. In particular, Defendant has 

served formal written discovery requests upon Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also personally served 5 

deposition subpoenas for percipient witnesses, served 1 deposition notice for an agent of Defendant 

who is a percipient witness, and served 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice. 

The depositions require significant coordination because the witnesses are located in a number of 

states, including (1) California, (2) Pennsylvania, (3) Colorado, (4) Delaware, and (5) New Jersey;

Whereas, the Parties are coordinating with the witnesses to schedule these depositions on

mutually agreeable dates as soon as practicable. However, the Parties are unable to meet the current 

discovery deadlines and take these depositions in advance of the July 22, 2016 non-expert discovery 

deadline. Numerous issues outside of the Parties’ control are significantly delaying the Parties’ 

ability to complete discovery. In particular, one witness central to this litigation underwent and is 

recuperating from surgery. Her deposition will be scheduled following her recovery and ability to sit 

for deposition. In addition, another essential witness has been unavailable due to being outside of the 

continental United States for several weeks for matters to which he needed to attend. His deposition 

can only be scheduled upon his return;

Whereas, accordingly, Plaintiff’s Counsel and counsel for Defendant met and conferred to 

discuss the current schedule, discovery, motion practice, trial, and the possible resolution of the 

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 7
6

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

matter. These meet and confer efforts were productive. However, the Parties recognize the need to 

continue the current non-expert discovery deadline in order to facilitate discovery and mediation 

efforts as well as to allow the efficient resolution of this matter;

Whereas, ultimately, the Parties are focused on effectively litigating this matter to avoid 

generating unnecessary costs and wasting unnecessary resources, including Counsel’s and the 

Court’s time;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, with good cause 

in support, by and between the Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel in the abovecaptioned litigation, and without waiver or limitation of any of their rights, claims, remedies or 

defenses in connection with this action, that the current non-expert discovery deadline be continued 

by approximately 2 1⁄2 months from July 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016. The Parties further stipulate 

that all other current deadlines remain the same. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Date: July19, 2016 SCHNEIDER WALLACE 

COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP

/s/ Carolyn Hunt Cottrell

Carolyn H. Cottrell

Nicole N. Coon

Attorneys for Plaintiff David Krueger

Date: July19, 2016 /s/ Joseph A. Schwachter

Joseph A. Schwachter

R. Keith Chapman

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Mistras Group, Inc. 

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 7
7

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES IN OCTOBER 28, 2015 SCHEDULING 

ORDER AND NOVEMBER 16, 2015 MINUTE ORDER

David Krueger v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION

Having reviewed the foregoing stipulation and for good cause appearing, the case schedule is 

amended as follows2:

o Non-expert discovery: October 7, 2016

o Expert discovery: November 11, 2016

 Non-dispositive motion deadlines:

o Filing: November 23, 2016

o Hearing: December 21, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

 Dispositive motion deadlines:

o Filing: January 13, 2017

o Hearing: February 20, 2017

 Pre-trial conference: April 20, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located 

at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

 Trial: June 20, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th

Street, Bakersfield, CA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The Court does not find the dates proposed by counsel to be reasonable. Thus, the Court has changed the dates set 

forth above and these changes are reflected in bold.

Case 1:15-cv-00997-JLT Document 17 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 7