Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benito Espino
Plaintiff
Marko Zaninovich, Inc.
Defendant
Juan Montes
Plaintiff
Guillermina Perez
Plaintiff
Josefino Ramirez
Plaintiff
Catalina Robles
Plaintiff
Santiago Rojas
Plaintiff
Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc.
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

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE DEADLINES

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

MALLISON & MARTINEZ

Stan S. Mallison (State Bar No. 184191)

Email: stanm@mallisonlaw.com

Marco A. Palau (State Bar No. 242340)

Email: mpalau@mallisonlaw.com

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 832-9999

Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 

LAW OFFICES OF MARCOS CAMACHO

Marcos Camacho (State Bar No. 123501)

Thomas P. Lynch (State Bar No. 159277)

Mario Martinez (State Bar No. 200721)

1227 California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93304

Telephone (661) 324-8100

Facsimile (661) 324-8103

Email: mcamacho@mclawmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

JAMES N. PENROD, State Bar No. 43030

MICHAEL MOLLAND, State Bar No. 111830

ERIC MECKLEY, State Bar No. 168181

SHANNON B. NAKABAYASHI, State Bar 

No. 215469

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: 415.442.1000

Facsimile: 415.442.1001

jpenrod@morganlewis.com

mmolland@morganlewis.com 

emeckley@morganlewis.com

snakabayashi@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF CALIFORNIA, 

INC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION 

SANTIAGO ROJAS, JOSEFINO 

RAMIREZ, CATALINA ROBLES, JUAN 

MONTES, BENITO ESPINO, 

GUILLERMINA PEREZ, on behalf of 

themselves, and all current and former 

employees, and on behalf of a class of 

similarly situated employees,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARKO ZANINOVICH, INC., 

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO STAY CASE DEADLINES 

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 181 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 5
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

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE DEADLINES

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

Pursuant to the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order granting the parties’ Stipulation to 

Continue Pre-Trial and Trial (Docket No. 149), Plaintiffs and Defendant (hereinafter together as 

the “Parties”) submit this Stipulation to Stay Case Deadlines pending the Court’s ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 161) and set forth the specific facts 

demonstrating “exceptional good cause” for their request.

1. Pursuant to previous orders of the Court (Docket No. 149), the Court has set the 

following pre-trial and trial deadlines:

a. Disclosure of merits-related experts: 12/2/2011

b. Disclosure of rebuttal merits experts: 12/23/2011

c. Merits-related discovery: 2/10/2012

d. Non-dispositive motions filing deadline: 2/24/2012

e. Non-dispositive motion hearing deadline: 3/26/2012

f. Dispositive motion filing deadline: 1/27/2012

g. Dispositive motion hearing deadline: 3/12/2012

h. Pretrial conference: 5/2/2012

i. Jury Trial: 7/10/2012

2. The Court’s September 1, 2011 order continuing pre-trial and trial deadlines was 

premised on the intent of the Parties and the Court that dispositive and merits-related expert 

discovery take place after resolution of class certification. See Docket No. 149 at 3, ¶6. As the 

Parties explained, “in light of the multiple, reasonable and necessary continuances of the hearing 

date on the class certification motion, however, the current schedule now requires dispositive 

motions and other merits-related issues (including disclosure and discovery related to merits 

experts) to be determined prior to the resolution of the motion for class certification. At the time 

the original scheduling order(s) were issued it was not anticipated that the hearing on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion would be continued to the end of October 2011.” Id.

3. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May 16, 2011 (Docket No. 

36 et seq.). Defendant filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on August 18, 2011. Docket No. 

107 et seq. Plaintiffs filed their Reply papers on October 7, 2011. Docket No. 165 et seq. The 

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 181 Filed 11/29/11 Page 2 of 5
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

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE DEADLINES

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification was continued several times and then set for 

October 25, 2012. Docket No. 147. 

4. On October 4, 2011, the Court vacated the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification. Docket No. 163. This resulted from Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the September 

19, 2011 Order of the Court (Docket No. 158) striking the opinions of their class certification 

expert, Aaron Woolfson. Id. 

5. In light of the pending motion for reconsideration and the Court’s order vacating 

the hearing on class certification, the case is in a similar procedural posture as it was when the 

parties sought a continuance of pre-trial and trial dates. Under the current schedule, it is likely 

that at least some of the presently set pre-trial deadlines will pass before the issue of class 

certification is resolved, beginning with the deadlines to disclose merits-related experts on 

December 2, 2011 and rebuttal experts on December 23, 2011. It is possible that other pre-trial 

deadlines may pass by prior to the Court issuing a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification. 

6. As the Parties indicated in their previous stipulation (Docket No. 149), it is not in 

the interests of judicial economy for dispositive motions to be heard and merits-related expert 

issues to be determined prior to the resolution of class certification. The grant or denial of 

certification will dramatically change the nature of the case going forward, as well as the issues 

before the Court. It would be a waste of the Parties’ and the Court’s time and resources to engage 

in merits-related expert discovery when it is currently unknown whether damages will be sought 

on behalf of only the six named Plaintiffs or on behalf of a class of potentially more than 8,000 

current and former employees of Sunview. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that the outcome of 

their motion for reconsideration will bear substantially on whether Plaintiffs will keep their class 

certification database expert or whether they will attempt to retain a new one. Similarly, unless 

and until the Court resolves the question of class certification, it would be not be appropriate for 

the Court to require the Parties to file any dispositive motions. 

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 181 Filed 11/29/11 Page 3 of 5
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

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE DEADLINES

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

7. In light of the above, the Parties believe that the reasonable and appropriate 

approach is to stay all pending pre-trial deadlines until Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is 

resolved.

BASED UPON THE ABOVE, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE PARTIES 

HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:

a. All pre-trial deadlines are stayed until the District Court Judge issues a ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the September 19, 2011 Order striking their class 

certification expert’s opinions; and

b. Within ten (10) days of the District Court Judge’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration, the Parties shall submit a status report and proposed hearing date for the class 

certification motion, along with new pre-trial and trial deadlines.

DATED: November 28, 2011 MALLISON & MARTINEZ

/s/ Marco A. Palau

Stan S. Mallison

Hector R. Martinez

Marco A. Palau

Joseph D. Sutton

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SANTIAGO ROJAS, et al.

DATED: November 28, 2011 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: /s/ Eric Meckley

James N. Penrod

Michael Molland

Eric Meckley

Shannon Nakabayashi

Attorneys for Defendant 

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC.

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 181 Filed 11/29/11 Page 4 of 5
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

5

STIPULATION TO STAY CASE DEADLINES

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00705-AWI-JLT

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:

1. All pre-trial deadlines are stayed until the Court issues a ruling on Plaintiffs’ 

motion for reconsideration of the September 19, 2011 order striking the opinion of Aaron 

Woolfson;

2. Within 10 days of the ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, the Parties 

shall submit a status report and proposed hearing date for the class certification motion, along 

with new pre-trial and trial deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 181 Filed 11/29/11 Page 5 of 5