Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01498/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01498-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernardina Rodriguez
Plaintiff
Taco Bell Corp.
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

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514)

shaun@setarehlaw.com

SETAREH LAW GROUP

9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 711

Beverly Hills, California 90212

Tel: 310.888.7771

Fax: 310.888.7771

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Bernardina Rodriguez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO

BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on 

behalf of herself, all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TACO BELL CORP, a California

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No: 1:13-CV-01498-SAB

JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 6
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

JOINT STIPULATION

TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 

RECORD: 

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 143, Plaintiff Bernardina Rodriguez 

("Rodriguez") and Defendant Taco Bell Corp. ("Taco Bell") (collectively, the “Parties”), by and 

through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to amend the discovery briefing schedule

with limited exceptions, in recognition of the following: 

WHEREAS ON June 25, 2013, Rodriguez filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 

in which she alleges the following claims for relief for herself and on behalf of seven subclasses 

of current and former hourly employees who worked at Taco Bell corporately-owned restaurants 

in California: 

(a) Penalties for failure to provide meal periods to hourly restaurant workers from 

May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit; 

(b) Penalties for failure to provide rest periods to hourly restaurant workers from 

May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit; 

(c) Violation of Labor Code §§510, 1194 and 1198 (unpaid minimum and 

overtime wages) from May 15, 2009 until the resolution of the lawsuit; 

(d) Failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to Labor Code § 226(a); 

(e) Violation of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 202 (non-payment of wages

 upon termination) from May 15, 2009, until the resolution of the lawsuit; 

(f) Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 

 seeking “restitution” during a period that commences on May 15, 2009, and 

 which extends until the resolution of the lawsuit; 

(g) Penalties under PAGA, Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. on behalf of all aggrieved 

 employees from June 25, 2012 to the resolution of the lawsuit (Rodriguez seeks 

 penalties for violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 223, 

 226(a), 226.7, 256, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, and 1198); and 

(h) Failure to include employee meal discounts in California non-exempt 

 employees’ regular rate for the purposes of calculating overtime wage 

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 6
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

 payments. 

WHEREAS ON July 9, 2013, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the FAC 

in its entirety;

WHEREAS ON October 30, 2013, the Court denied Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss; 

WHEREAS the Parties have extensively met and conferred by telephone and have agreed 

to engage in limited formal and informal discovery and to prepare dispositive pre-trial motions 

regarding whether Taco Bell’s voluntary discounted meal program violates California law or 

impacts Taco Bell’s California employees’ overtime pay; 

WHEREAS the Parties have propounded written discovery, but have subsequently agreed 

to stay all discovery, with the following limited exceptions related to Taco Bell’s discounted 

meal policy and all related and/or derivative claims: 

a. Rodriguez will depose Taco Bell pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); 

b. Taco Bell will depose Rodriguez; and Taco Bell will produce its employee meal 

 discount policy and make available for inspection records of California 

 employees’ discounted meals. 

c. The Parties will provide verified responses to all relevant written discovery 

 relating to the claims that will be adjudicated on cross motions for summary 

 judgment/adjudication. 

WHEREAS the Parties agreed to stipulate to a protective order governing the production 

and use of confidential and private documents prior to the exchange of discovery; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to vacate current class certification deadlines and 

continue to meet and confer regarding the dispositive pre-trial motions; 

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2014 the Parties agreed and the Court has ordered the parties to

file dispositive pre-trial motions regarding Taco Bell’s voluntary discounted meal program and 

related claims pursuant to the following briefing schedule: 

a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed June 18, 2014. 

b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on July 25, 2014. 

c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 8, 2014. 

d. The requested hearing date is September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. before 

 Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. 

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 6
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

THE PARTIES NOW agree and request to amend the briefing schedule as follows:

a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed July 23, 2014.

b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on August 13, 2014. 

c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 20, 2014. 

d. The requested hearing date to remain on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 

 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. 

THE PARTIES SO STIPULATE.

Dated: May 8, 2014 SETAREH LAW GROUP

By: /s/ Shaun Setareh

Shaun Setareh

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Bernardina Rodriguez

Dated: May 8, 2014 SHEPPARD MULLIN

By: /s/ Nora K. Stiles 

Nora K. Stiles

 Attorneys for Defendant,

Taco Bell Corp.

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 4 of 6
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 – FRESNO

BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, on 

behalf of herself, all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TACO BELL CORP, a California

corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No: 1:13-CV-01498-SAB

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO 

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 5 of 6
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

ORDER

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

Having considered the Joint Stipulation between counsel for Plaintiff Bernardina 

Rodriguez and Defendant Taco Bell Corp. to Amend the Scheduling Order, and good 

cause appearing therefore, this Court hereby ORDERS that the that the briefing schedule 

regarding discovery, as follows:

a. Cross Motions for Summary Judgment will be filed July 23, 2014. 

b. The Parties’ Oppositions will be filed on August 13, 2014. 

c. The Parties’ Reply Briefs will be filed on August 20, 2014.

d. The requested hearing date to remain on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 

 before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01498-SAB Document 54 Filed 05/09/14 Page 6 of 6