Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02102/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02102-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Burris
Plaintiff
City of Petaluma
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

BURRIS v. CITY OF PETALUMA

Case No. 4:18-cv-02102-HSG

DAVID E. MASTAGNI (SBN 204244)

ISAAC S. STEVENS (SBN 251245)

ACE T. TATE (SBN 262015)

IAN B. SANGSTER (SBN 287963)

MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT

A Professional Corporation

1912 I Street

Sacramento, California 95811-3151

Telephone: (916) 446-4692

Facsimile: (916) 447-4614

davidm@mastagni.com

istevens@mastagni.com

atate@mastagni.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MORIN I. JACOB (SBN 204598)

RICHARD C. BOLANOS (SBN 111343)

LISA S. CHARBONNEAU (SBN 245906)

LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE

135 Main Street, 7th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (707) 778-4362

Facsimile: (707) 206-6040

mjacob@lcwlegal.com

rbolanos@lcwlegal.com

lcharbonneau@lcwlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN BURRIS, on behalf of himself and 

all similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF PETALUMA,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-cv-02102-HSG

 Complaint Filed: April 6, 2018

COLLECTIVE ACTION - 29 U.S.C. 216(b)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT AND RE-SETTING CASE 

MANAGEMENT DATES

TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 

RECORD: 

Case 4:18-cv-02102-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/28/18 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 2 BURRIS v. CITY OF PETALUMA

Case No. 4:18-cv-02102-HSG

WHEREAS, this putative collective action was filed on April 6, 2018, asserting Defendant 

violated the overtime payment provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

WHEREAS, Defendant was served the Summons and Complaint on April 16, 2018; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to stipulation, Defendant’s response to the Complaint is presently 

due on or by July 6, 2018 (see Dkt. No. 11);

WHEREAS, the Parties have begun settlement discussions in an effort to resolve this 

action, which has included the City providing Plaintiffs with payroll records and other 

information to pertinent to their claims;

WHEREAS, the Parties are working to schedule a settlement conference in July 2018; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that Defendant should be permitted to file a response to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint no later than August 10, 2018 to enable the Parties to focus their resources 

on the settlement of this action; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the initial Case Management Conference, currently set 

for July 17, 2018, should be moved to a date subsequent to August 10, 2018 – the proposed date 

for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(b), the Parties request a Court order extending 

Defendant’s time to respond to the Complaint to August 10, 2018 and moving the initial Case 

Management Conference and related dates accordingly.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the Parties:

1) Defendant’s time to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be August 10, 2018;

2) The initial Case Management Conference is to be held on or after August 28, 2018, as 

the Court’s calendar permits;

3) The Joint Case Management Statement must be filed not less than seven (7) calendar 

days prior to the Case Management Conference; and

4) The last day for the Parties to meet and confer per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(f) be reset accordingly.

Case 4:18-cv-02102-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/28/18 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 3 BURRIS v. CITY OF PETALUMA

Case No. 4:18-cv-02102-HSG

Respectfully Submitted:

Dated: June 27, 2018 MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, APC

By: _/s/ David E. Mastagni_ 

DAVID E. MASTAGNI

ISAAC S. STEVENS

ACE T. TATE

IAN B. SANGSTER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: June 27, 2018 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE

By: _ /s/ Morin I. Jacob___

MORIN I. JACOB

RICHARD C. BOLANOS

LISA S. CHARBONNEAU

Attorneys for Defendant

DECLARATION OF DAVID E. MASTAGNI

I, DAVID E. MASTAGNI, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of California and am 

specifically admitted to practice before the Northern District of California. 

2. I am an attorney of record for Plaintiff in this action and make this declaration within 

my personal knowledge. If called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently with 

respect thereto.

3. On June 25, 2018, counsel for the Parties met and conferred and discussed the 

possibility of scheduling a settlement conference for July 2018. The Parties are currently working 

to set that date. During this discussion, Defendant requested an extension of time to respond to 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint to provide it more time to investigate Plaintiffs’ claims, evaluate the merit 

thereof, and negotiate settlement, if any, and requested an additional extension to August 10, 2018.

4. In the previous weeks, in furtherance of settlement discussions, Defendant has 

provided Plaintiffs with payroll records and other requested information pertinent to Plaintiffs’ 

claims in the hopes of settling this matter without further litigation. 

Case 4:18-cv-02102-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/28/18 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER 4 BURRIS v. CITY OF PETALUMA

Case No. 4:18-cv-02102-HSG

5. Prior to this, the Parties stipulated to extend the Defendant’s time to respond to 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint from May 7, 2018 to July 6, 2018.

5. This extension, if granted, will impact the currently scheduled Case Management 

Conference, and related deadlines, set by the Court upon filing this action. For this reason, the 

Parties are requesting this Court to move the Case Management Conference to August 28, 2018 

and re-set related dates accordingly.

6. I do not believe any party will be prejudiced by the granting Defendant an 

extension and continuing the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines, as set 

forth in the Parties’ stipulation. 

__/s/ David E. Mastagni________________ 

DAVID E. MASTAGNI

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be extended to August 

10, 2018;

2. The Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued to August 28, 2018 at 

2:00 p.m.; and

3. The Parties must meet and confer per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and 

must file the Joint Case Management Statement not less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the 

Case Management Conference.

Dated: __________________ __________________________________

HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/28/2018

Case 4:18-cv-02102-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 4