ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUTARY DISMISSAL

JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULES

STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge.

I. JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF MARTINEZ V. OPTIMUS PROPERTIES, LLC, 2:16-CV-08598

WHEREAS, in the case of Cornelia Martinez, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:16-cv-08598-SVW-MRW (the "Initial Action"), Judge Wilson ordered Plaintiffs to file, on or before May 12, 2017, separate complaints for each of the five buildings in which the Plaintiffs reside (ECF No. 47); and

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed five actions pursuant to Judge Wilson's order: Martinez, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03581-SVW-MRW (1423 S. Magnolia); Ramos, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03582-SVW-MRW (756 S. Normandie); Escamilla, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03583-SVW-MRW (250 S. Kenmore); Allen, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03584-SVW-MRW (837 S. Normandie); and Rivera, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03585-SVW-MRW (238 S. Mariposa) (together, the "Original Buildings Actions"), as well as a sixth action, Guerrero, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03586-SVW-MRW (401 S. Kenmore) (together with the Original Buildings Actions, the "Related Actions"); and

WHEREAS, the Original Buildings Actions cover the same subject matter as the Initial Action; and

WHEREAS, discovery requests have been propounded by the parties in the Initial Action; and

WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, the parties met and conferred pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) with respect to the Related Actions; and

WHEREAS, the parties agreed that the Initial Action is no longer necessary; and

WHEREAS, the parties agreed that discovery requests propounded in the Initial Action, and disputes related thereto, may proceed under any and all of those Original Buildings Actions to which they pertain;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their undersigned counsel, that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), the Initial Action, entitled Cornelia Martinez, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al, No. 2:16-cv-08598-SVW-MRW, is dismissed without prejudice, and that disputes over any discovery requests propounded under the Initial Action may be disputed in any and all of the Initial Building Actions to which those discovery requests pertain.

II. JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULES

WHEREAS, the Court's March 13, 2017 Minute Order in the Initial Action following the New Case Status Conference (ECF 47 in the Initial Action) did not specify case schedules beyond that of the Initial Action; and

WHEREAS, the Order Continuing Trial Date and Discovery Deadline, entered on June 22, 2017 in the Initial Action and in each of the Related Actions (ECF 67 in the Initial Action; ECF 17 in 1423 S. Magnolia; ECF 17 in 756 S. Normandie; ECF 18 in 250 S. Kenmore; ECF 18 in 837 S. Normandie; ECF 22 in 238 S. Mariposa; and ECF 18 in 401 S. Kenmore), continued the original trial date and the discovery deadline set in the March 13, 2017 Minute Order for the Initial Action; and

WHEREAS, at the July 11, 2017 conference between the parties with respect to the Related Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties designated the trial date and discovery deadline set forth in the June 22, 2017 Order as the trial date and discovery deadline for 1423 S. Magnolia, the first Related Action filed, and agreed to a staggered schedule for the rest of the Related Actions; and

WHEREAS, there is good cause for the entry of a staggered schedule in the Related Actions, which is to allow the parties sufficient time to brief dispositive motions in each of the six Related Actions, and to allow the Court sufficient time to consider each such motion; and

WHEREAS, there is further good cause for the entry of a staggered schedule in the Related Actions, which is to allow the parties time to properly consider the sufficiency of the record for each individual action, and to have sufficient time to exchange evidence and prepare for each individual trial before the beginning of trial in each action:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ALSO STIPULATED that the case schedules listed below will be operative.

So stipulated.

1. Martinez, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03581-SVW MRW (1423 S. Magnolia):

2. Ramos, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03582-SVW-MRW (756 S. Normandie):

3. Escamilla, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03583-SVW-MRW (250 S. Kenmore)

4. Allen, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03584-SVW-MRW (837 S. Normandie):

5. Rivera, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03585-SVW-MRW (238 S. Mariposa)

6. Guerrero, et al. v. Optimus Properties, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03586-SVW-MRW (401 S. Kenmore)