STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

STIPULATION

WHEREAS Defendant recently identified documents executed between the Parties that may affect the venue for this action;

WHEREAS Counsel are meeting-and-conferring regarding the issue of venue, and may soon reach agreement to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Michigan;

WHEREAS the resources of this Court and the Parties are better conserved by allowing the Parties to continue to meet-and-confer and attempt to reach agreement on venue prior to having a Case Management Conference before this Court;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, the Parties are stipulating to continue the Case Management Conference in this action currently scheduled for October 21, 2014 to October 28, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., and the associated deadlines for filing a Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Initial Disclosures from October 14, 2014, to October 21, 2014. In support of this Stipulation, and pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, the Parties concurrently submit the Declaration of Laura J. Maechtlen.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DECLARATION OF LAURA J. MAECHTLEN IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

I, Laura J. Maechtlen, declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before the courts of the State of California. I am a partner in the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Kelly"). I make this declaration in support of the Parties' Stipulation to Continue Case Management Conference. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the truth of these facts.

2. On Friday, October 10, 2014, in preparation for the upcoming Case Management Conference and in anticipation of discovery in this matter, my team discovered documents executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding a choice of forum provision. This provision would require "any dispute[]" between the Plaintiffs and Defendant to "be brought only in the State of Michigan Courts of appropriate venue, or the United States District Court sitting in Michigan," and provides the signatory's "consent to and submi[ssion] . . . to the jurisdiction of such Courts." We have found executed copies of these documents for two of the three named Plaintiffs, and believe a copy also exists for the third named Plaintiff, and are searching for that document now.

3. On Monday, October 13, 2014, I informed Michelle Drake, counsel for Plaintiffs, that we had found these documents and believed Defendant has a basis to seek transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan.

4. Counsel for Plaintiffs and I agreed that we should continue to meet-and-confer on this issue to determine whether the Parties can stipulate to a transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan.

5. The Parties anticipate that they will be able to determine within one week whether they will agree to transfer the action, or if there will be motion practice on this issue.

6. Because there is a possibility that the Parties may agree to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Michigan, the Parties believe that their resources, as well as the resources of this Court, are better conserved by continuing by one week the upcoming Case Management Conference currently scheduled for October 21, 2014, and the associated deadlines for a Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Initial Disclosures, currently due on October 14, 2014.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 14, 2014 in San Francisco, California.