Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00705-12/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

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 

KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC

Eric B. Kingsley (State Bar No. 185123)

E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com

Steve L. Hernández (State Bar No. 229065)

E-mail: shernandez@kingsleykingsley.com

16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite1200

Encino, CA 91436

Telephone: (818) 990-8300

Facsimile: (818) 990-2903

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 REGARDING CONTINUATION 

OF PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES 

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 149 Filed 09/01/11 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

Pursuant to the Court’s April 6, 2011 Order granting the parties’ Request to Amend the 

Scheduling Order (Docket No. 33), Plaintiffs and Defendant (hereinafter together as the 

“Parties”) submit this Stipulation to Continue Pre-Trial and Trial and set forth the specific facts 

demonstrating “exceptional good cause” for their requested continuance.

1. Pursuant to the Court’s prior scheduling orders (Docket Nos. 27, 33 and 35), the 

Court has set the following pre-trial and trial deadlines:

a. Disclosure of merits-related experts (including expert report): 9/2/2011

b. Disclosure of rebuttal merits experts (including expert report): 10/3/2011

c. Dispositive Motions filing deadline: 9/23/2011

d. Dispositive Motions hearing deadline: 11/7/2011

e. Pretrial conference: 1/4/2012

f. Jury Trial: 3/6/2012

2. The Court had originally set the deadline to file Motions for Class Certification for 

April 15, 2011. Docket No. 27. This deadline was continued to May 16, 2011 pursuant to a 

stipulation and request by the Parties. Docket No. 33. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class 

Certification on May 16, 2011 and set the hearing for July 11, 2011. Docket No. 36. et seq. The 

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was continued several times.

3. On June 29, 2011, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification until August 31, 2011. Docket No. 87. This continuance resulted from the fact that 

there were numerous law and motion hearings before the Court relating to the depositions of the 

putative class member declarants identified in Plaintiffs’ Motion, all of which eventually resulted 

in the Court allowing Defendant to depose nine (9) putative class members during the months of 

June and July 2011. The Court thereafter on its own motion continued the hearing on the class 

certification Motion until September 1, 2011. Docket No. 99.

4. On August 18, 2011, Defendant Sunview filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification. Docket Nos. 101, et seq. 

5. On August 23, 2011, the Parties attended a telephonic hearing with the Court 

during which Plaintiffs requested leave to depose several declarants identified in Defendant’s 

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 149 Filed 09/01/11 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

Opposition and also requested additional time to prepare their Reply brief. During this hearing 

the Court allowed Plaintiffs to depose nine (9) of Defendant’s declarants and extended the 

deadline for Plaintiffs to submit Reply papers to October 7, 2011. The Court also continued the 

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification until October 25, 2011 at 9 a.m. Docket No. 

147.

6. The Court’s original scheduling order contemplated that class certification 

motion(s) would be heard prior to dispositive motions and merits-related expert discovery. 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. 

8. It is not in the interests of the judicial economy for dispositive motions to be heard 

and merits-related expert issues to be determined prior to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ motion for 

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. 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. 

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

HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:

a. Disclosure of merits-related experts (including expert reports compliant with Rule 

26) shall be completed no later than December 23, 2011;

b. Disclosure of rebuttal merits experts (including expert reports compliant with Rule 

26)) shall be completed by January 13, 2012;

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 149 Filed 09/01/11 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

c. The last day on which to file any dispositive motions shall be January 27, 2012;

d. Dispositive Motions shall be heard on March 2, 2012;

e. The pretrial conference shall be held on April 11, 2012 or another date convenient 

for the Court;

f. Jury Trial shall begin on May 14, 2012 or another date convenient for the Court; 

and

g. All of the deadlines established in the Court’s prior orders regarding the class 

certification briefing schedule shall remain in effect.

DATED: August 31, 2011 MALLISON & MARTINEZ

/S/ Marco A. Palau

Stan S. Mallison

Hector R. Martinez

Marco A. Palau

Jessica Juarez

Joseph D. Sutton

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SANTIAGO ROJAS, et al.

DATED: August 31, 2011 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: /S/ Shannon Nakabayashi

James N. Penrod

Michael Molland

Eric Meckley

Shannon Nakabayashi

Attorneys for Defendants 

MARKO ZANINOVICH, INC., and 

SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC.

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 149 Filed 09/01/11 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

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the scheduling order is ORDERED amended as follows:

1. The parties SHALL jointly disclose merits-related experts, in compliance with the 

requirements of the scheduling order, no later than December 2, 2011;

2. The parties SHALL jointly disclose rebuttal, merits-related experts, in compliance

with the requirements of the scheduling order, no later than December 23, 2011;

3. All merits-related expert discovery SHALL be completed by February 10, 2012;

4. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than February 24, 2012 and 

heard no later than March 26, 2012;

5. Dispositive motions SHALL be filed no later than January 27, 20121and heard 

no later than March 12, 2012;

6. The pretrial conference SHALL be held on May 2, 2012;

7. Trial SHALL be held on July 10, 2012;

8. No other dates are modified;

9. No other amendments to the case schedule will be permitted except upon a 

showing of exceptional good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2011 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

1

In accepting the parties’ proposed date for filing dispositive motions, the Court recognizes that non-dispositive 

motions may not be completed by this time and presumes the parties recognized this also.

Case 1:09-cv-00705-AWI-JLT Document 149 Filed 09/01/11 Page 5 of 5