Opinion
Case No. 2:09-CV-02603-JAM, Bank. Ct. Case No. 08-26813 (MSM).
February 26, 2010
DEAN M. GLOSTER (SBN 109313), KELLY A. WOODRUFF (SBN 160235), LAURA C. ROCHE (SBN 174596), FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Appellant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2376.
MARC A. LEVINSON (SBN 57613), NORMAN C. HILE (SBN 57299), MICHAEL WEED (SBN 199675), ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE LLP, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Appellee, City of Vallejo.
STIPULATED APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER THEREON
Pursuant to Local Rule 144(e), Appellant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2376 ("IBEW"), and Appellee City of Vallejo ("City") jointly apply for an order shortening time of the hearing before this Court on IBEW's appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling (the "Appeal"). The hearing is currently scheduled for April 7, 2010. This application is supported by the Declaration of Marc A. Levinson ("Levinson Decl.").
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California transferred the Appeal to this Court. On December 21, 2009, IBEW timely submitted its opening brief. The City timely filed its opposition on January 26, 2010, and IBEW timely filed its reply on February 16, 2010. On February 18, 2010, IBEW filed an Amended Notice That Appeal Is Ready For Oral Argument ("Notice"). On February 19, 2010, the Court issued a minute order setting the hearing on the Appeal for April 7, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. before this Court. See Levinson Decl., at ¶ 2 Ex. A.
That same day, the City alerted the Court that April 7 was a date upon which the parties were unavailable to appear, as indicated in the Notice. Levinson Decl., at ¶ 3. The Court informed the City that it preferred to set a hearing date for the Appeal on its biweekly law and motion calendar, and offered to set the hearing on April 21, 2010, or May 5, 2010. Id. ¶ 4. Lead counsel for IBEW is available on April 21, but months ago, lead counsel for the City committed to be in Minneapolis, Minnesota on April 21, and in Dallas, Texas the following day. Id. ¶ 5. Appearing on April 21 would require counsel for the City to break both commitments, impacting the schedules of many other individuals. Id. Lead counsel for IBEW and the City are available to appear on May 5, but for the reasons articulated below, request that the Court set an earlier hearing on the Appeal. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
Parallel to the Appeal, beginning March 31, 2010, IBEW and the City will participate in a mediation and arbitration process regarding a new collective bargaining agreement between the City and IBEW. See Levinson Decl., at ¶ 7. Such process resulted from the rejection of the collective bargaining agreement that is the subject of the Appeal. Id. The goal of the mediation/arbitration process is to either negotiate a new agreement or to have one imposed by the arbitrator. Id. The process will commence with a mediation session on March 31, 2010, followed by arbitration sessions on April 1, April 2, and May 10-19, if necessary. Id. IBEW and the City believe that expeditious hearing and decision of this Appeal will assist the parties in reaching an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement between IBEW and the City, and that an early agreement will save both sides time, effort and attorneys' fees. Id.
II. DISCUSSION
Upon receiving the Court's February 19 minute order setting the April 7 hearing, the parties immediately alerted the Court that the hearing had been scheduled for a date upon which the parties had indicated that they were unavailable. Levinson Decl., at ¶ 3. Regarding a new hearing date, therefore, IBEW and the City jointly request a date before April 7 in light of the scheduled mediation and arbitration process in March, April, and May 2010. Id. ¶ 7. The parties believe that hearing this appeal before March 31 — ideally during the Court's March 24 law and motion calendar — will assist in the informal resolution of their disputes. Id. Should the Court not set this hearing for its March 24 law and motion calendar, the parties request that the Court set the hearing on a different date in late March or mid-April. The parties are available on any of the following dates: March 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25 and 26; April 12, 13, 15, 19, and 23.
III. CONCLUSION
IBEW and the City understand that in making this request, they are imposing on the Court and its calendar, and at the risk of stating the obvious, they would not make the request if the relief sought were not important to both parties. They thank the Court for considering the request, and ask that it grant their joint application to shorten time and set the hearing on the Appeal for March 24 or one of the alternative dates listed above.