Opinion
WILLIAM L. STERN, CLAUDIA M. VETESI, LISA A. WONGCHENKO, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant, DEL MONTE FOODS, INC.
BEN F. PIERCE GORE, PRATT & ASSOCIATES, San Jose, CA, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MEDIATION DEADLINE [CIVIL L.R. 6-1]
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiffs MICHAEL KOSTA and STEVE BATES, ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant DEL MONTE FOODS, INC. ("Defendant" or "Del Monte") through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, this action was filed in this Court on April 5, 2012, an Amended Complaint was filed on July 6, 2012, a Consolidated Complaint was filed on June 11, 2013, and Defendant answered the Consolidated Complaint on June 28, 2013;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on June 2, 2014, Del Monte filed its Opposition to Class Certification on July 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Class Certification on July 29, 2014, and the hearing on the Motion for Class Certification will occur on August 19, 2014;
WHEREAS, the mediation deadline is currently September 2, 2014. When the Court set that deadline, the hearing on class certification was scheduled to occur on July 22, 2014. Since then, the briefing schedule was revised allowing additional time for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification and additional time to file their reply brief;
WHEREAS, as previously represented to the Court, counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiffs participated in a mediation on December 18, 2013, for one of Plaintiffs' counsel's similar food labeling cases, Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-cv-01831-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The mediation was not productive, due in large part to the many unresolved legal issues in the case. As in this case, there were no rulings on class certification or summary judgment in Brazil. The parties, as well as the mediator Sue Stott, agreed that postponement of future mediations in these cases would be beneficial. Indeed, Ms. Stott sent an email to Howard Herman, the Court's ADR Chief, explaining her concerns with mediating the cases at this stage. The ADR department leaders expressed a desire to help the parties by moving deadlines where postponement would be useful;
WHEREAS, without rulings on the key issues in this case, the parties believe that they cannot effectively engage in mediation. They believe that mediation at this time would be as futile as the Brazil mediation. They jointly request that the meditation deadline be extended so that the parties can benefit from the resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, through their counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that the mediation deadline is postponed until 90 days after the Court rules on class certification.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.