`
`
`Christopher J. Schulte (D.C. Bar No. 500878) (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
`SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20007
`Phone: 202-263-4344
`Fax: 202-263-4322
`Email: cschulte@sgrlaw.com
`
`Patrick J. Cain, CSB #105331
`Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
`444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 358-7213; Fax: (213) 358-313
`
`Robert P. Roy (SBN 74982)
`Ventura County Agricultural Association
`916 W. Ventura Blvd., Suite 101
`Camarillo, CA 93010
`Tel.: (805) 388-2727
`Fax: (805) 388-2767
`Email: rob-vcaa@pacbell.net
`
`Attorneys for the Intervenors
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`FRESNO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 1:20-cv-01690-DAD-JLT
`
`UNITED FARM WORKERS, et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`LABOR, et al.,
`Defendants
`
`
`
`PROPOSED INTERVENORS MOTION
`TO STAY
`
`PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO STAY
`The National Council of Agricultural Employers and Western Growers Association
`
`(collectively, “Proposed Intervenors”) move under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and the
`Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket to stay all proceedings in this case pending the
` 1:20-cv-01690-DAD-JLT
`- 1 -
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01690-DAD-JLT Document 69 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`Court’s ruling on Proposed Intervenors’ Joint Motion to Intervene. Proposed Intervenors state
`the following in support of this motion:
`1. Every court has the power to control the “disposition of the causes on its docket with
`economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am.
`Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).
`2. This control can best be done by exercising sound judgement in weighing competing
`interest and maintaining an even balance. Id.
`3. Proposed Intervenors are requesting a stay of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs and
`Defendants’ Stipulation and Proposed Order until Proposed Intervenors’ Joint Motion for
`Intervention is ruled upon.
`4. If the Court does not stay the proceedings pending the ruling on Proposed Intervenors’
`Motion, it would cause significant waste of judicial resources to potentially undo what
`the Court has already done after finally hearing from the Proposed Intervenors, the ones
`responsible for making the potential equitable relief (back pay).
`5. The current parties to this case will not be prejudiced by a stay as Proposed Intervenors
`are a party that must be heard in this adversarial process as the process requires that the
`Court hear from both sides before the interests of one are impaired. Sierra Club v. United
`States EPA, 995 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1993).
`For the foregoing reasons and such others as may appear to the Court, Proposed Intervenors
`respectfully request that the Court use its sound discretion to grant their Motion to Stay pending
`ruling on their pending Joint Motion to Intervene.
`
`DATED: June 10, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
`
`/s/ Patrick J. Cain
`Patrick J. Cain
`Attorney for the Intervenor
`
` 1:20-cv-01690-DAD-JLT
`- 2 -
`
`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
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
