From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 19, 2011
Case No. C 11-02973 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C 11-02973 HRL

10-19-2011

DANIEL SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, INC.; BILL PACHECO; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 853; MICHAEL AMARAL; ROME ALOISE, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants.

LAW OFFICE OF LARRY A. PETERSON By: Larry A. Peterson Attorney for Plaintiff DANIEL SULLIVAN MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: Kathryn M. Dancisak Attorneys for Defendants ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC and BILL PACHECO BEESON, TAYER & BODINE By: Andrew H. Baker Attorneys for Defendants INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 853, MICHAEL AMARAL, and ROME ALOISE


LARRY A. PETERSON, State Bar No. 138416

LAW OFFICE OF LARRY A. PETERSON

2021 The Alameda, Suite 160

Attorney for Plaintiff

DANIEL SULLIVAN

ANDREW H. BAKER, State Bar No. 104197

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE

Attorneys for Defendants INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL

853, MICHAEL AMARAL, and ROME

ALOISE

ERIC MECKLEY, SBN 168181

KATHRYN M. DANCISAK, SBN 259392

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER

APPAREL, LLC (improperly named as

ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER

APPAREL, INC.) and BILL PACHECO

JOINT STIPULATION; DECLARATION;

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Judge: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules 6-2(a) and 7-12 , Plaintiff Daniel Sullivan ("Plaintiff") and Defendants ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC ("AUCA") (sued as ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc.), Bill Pacheco, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853, Michael Amaral, and Rome Aloise (collectively, "Defendants") (Plaintiff and Defendants are referred to as the "Parties" herein), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following:

WHEREAS, on September 16, 2011, the Union and ARAMARK defendants each filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, Defendants' motions to dismiss are set for hearing on November 8, 2011;

WHEREAS, this Court has scheduled this matter for an initial Case Management Conference on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.;

WHEREAS, given the pending motions to dismiss, conducting the initial Case Management Conference prior to the Court's ruling on such motions would result injudicial inefficiency and create an unnecessary drain on the time and resources of both the Court and the Parties. As a result, the Parties agree and respectfully request that the initial Case Management Conference be continued to a date no earlier than November 29, 2011, in order to allow sufficient time for the Court to rule on Defendants' respective motions and for the Parties to evaluate their positions following the Court's ruling. No prior extensions of time have been requested;

WHEREAS, the Parties request that the deadline for filing of their Joint Case Management Conference Statement be continued to seven (7) days before the date of the continued initial Case Management Conference;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties that the initial Case Management Conference be continued to a date no earlier than November 29, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., and the deadline for the filing of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report will be continued until seven (7) days prior to the date of the continued Case Management Conference. Filed concurrently herewith is the Declaration of Kathryn Dancisak in support of this Stipulation, in compliance with and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a).

LAW OFFICE OF LARRY A. PETERSON

By: Larry A. Peterson

Attorney for Plaintiff

DANIEL SULLIVAN

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: Kathryn M. Dancisak

Attorneys for Defendants

ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER

APPAREL, LLC and BILL PACHECO

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE

By: Andrew H. Baker

Attorneys for Defendants

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD

OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 853,

MICHAEL AMARAL, and ROME

ALOISE

LAW OFFICE OF LARRY A. PETERSON

By: Larry A. Peterson

Attorney for Plaintiff

DANIEL SULLIVAN

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

By: Kathryn M. Dancisak

Attorneys for Defendants

ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER

APPAREL, LLC and BILL PACHECO

BEESON, TAYER & BODINE

Bv: Andrew H. Baker

Attorneys for Defendants

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD

OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 853,

MICHAEL AMARAL, and ROME

ALOISE

DECLARATION

I, Kathryn M. Dancisak declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am an associate at the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, attorneys for Defendants ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC ("AUCA") (sued as ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc.) and Bill Pacheco in this action. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California and have been admitted to practice in the Northern District of California. I have direct and personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to these facts.

2. The reason for the requested continuance of the initial Case Management Conference is to promote judicial efficiency and conserve the time and resources of both the Court and the Parties in light of the pending motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

3. The Court previously continued the initial Case Management Conference until October 25, 2011 by Notice of the Clerk after the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint.

4. After Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which are noticed for hearing on November 8, 2011.

5. I have met and conferred with counsel for all Parties and we agreed to stipulate to continue the Case Management Conference to a date no earlier than November 29, 2011. This will allow sufficient time for the Court to rule on Defendants' respective motions and for the Parties to evaluate their positions following the Court's ruling.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 12th day of October 2011 at San Francisco, California.

Kathryn M. Dancisak

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The initial Case Management Conference in this matter is continued to December 13, 2011 must be filed seven (7) days prior to the Case Management C on ference.

Honorable Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge

C11-02973 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Andrew H. Baker abaker@beesontayer.com, eaviva@beesontayer.com,

lhodge@beesontayer.com

Eric Meckley emeckley@morganlewis.com, mary.gonzalez@morganlewis.com

Kathryn M. Dancisak kdancisak@morganlewis.com, kgregory@morganlewis.com

Larry Alan Peterson lapetersn@gmail.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 19, 2011
Case No. C 11-02973 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL, INC.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Oct 19, 2011

Citations

Case No. C 11-02973 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011)