Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Acosta v. AAA Buffet Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 21, 2017

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, the Secretary,
v.
AAA BUFFET, INC., a corporation d/b/a AAA BUFFET; AAA KING BUFFET, INC. d/b/a AAA BUFFET a corporation; XING SHI YONG, an individual; YOU ZHU TENG, an individual; XING SHI LU, an individual; and HAI YAN LIN, an individual, Defendants

          NICHOLAS C. GEALE Acting Solicitor of Labor

          JANET M. HEROLD Regional Solicitor

          BRUCE L. BROWN Associate Regional Solicitor

          JOSHUA P. FALK Senior Trial Attorney

          JEREMIAH MILLER Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Labor Attorneys for Plaintiff Secretary of Labor

          DOUGLAS GILL JR. & ASSOCIATES, PLLC DOUGLAS GILL, JR. Attorney for Defendants AAA Buffet, Inc. et.al

          STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER MOVING PRETRIAL DEADLINES

          Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge.

         By this Court's order (Dkt. 34, filed 12/07/2016), and Local Rules (“LR”) 16 and 51, the parties are required to make certain pretrial exchanges and filings by January 16, 2018. However, the parties have scheduled a settlement conference, per LR 39.1(c)(3), for January 16, 2018, before the Honorable Richard Creatura. Dkt. 56. In an effort to conserve resources, the parties move the Court to reset certain deadlines established by the rules and the Court's order.

         For those deadlines set by LR 16, “[t]he court may, by order in a specific case, modify or forego any of the procedures or deadlines set forth in this rule.” LR 16(m)(2). For other aspects of the scheduling order, the dates “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

         Here, the parties have worked diligently with Judge Creatura's staff to select a mutually agreeable date for mediation. The earliest time that all parties were available (including counsel and party representatives with the authority to resolve the matter) was January 16, 2018. This date is after the deadline for the Secretary to serve his pretrial statement on Defendants, and on the same day as several other deadlines including the motion in limine deadline. As it may conserve the parties' and the Court's resources to permit the parties to focus on mediation, the parties propose the following modifications:

LR, action

Current Deadline

New Deadline

16(h), the Secretary's pretrial statement served on Defendants

1/8/2018

1/22/18

51(e), parties exchange proposed jury instructions

1/16/18

1/22/18

Dkt. 34, motions in limine filed

1/16/18

1/25/18

16(i), Defendants' pretrial statement served on the Secretary

1/16/18

1/25/18

16(k), conference of attorneys

1/26/18

1/30/18

         The parties agree that motions in limine will still be noted for Friday, February 2, 2018, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.