JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING A STAY OF DISCOVERY AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT IN SMITH V. BIMBO BAKERIES, USA, INC.

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Michael Hummel and Brian Botelho ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby file this Joint Stipulation Requesting A Stay of Discovery and All Other Proceedings Pending Final Approval of Class Settlement in Smith v. Bimbo Bakeries, USA, Inc. and state as follows:

1. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in this case seek to represent a putative class of all current and former Relief Drivers in the state of California and assert several causes of action against Defendant, including: (1) failure to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay all wages earned in a timely manner; (3) failure to pay wages due upon discharge, layoff or resignation (waiting time penalties); (4) failure to provide timely accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to provide and/or authorize meal and rest periods/unpaid wages; (6) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (7) unfair business practices and for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. ECF No. 1, Ex. A., Complaint, ¶¶ 39-108.

2. WHEREAS, on September 5, 2014, in a separate litigation in the Central District of California, Plaintiffs Tyrone Smith, Greg Villanueva, and John Caudill, individually and on behalf of a conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act collective action members and putative Rule 23 class members, moved for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement in an action against Defendant captioned Tyrone Smith, et al. v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-01689-CAS-PJW, pending before Judge Christina A. Snyder ("the Smith Action"). See ECF No. 119, Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for Settlement Approval of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Unopposed Motion"). Plaintiffs in the Smith Action seek to represent all of the same current and former Route Sales Representatives and similar employees, including Relief Drivers, in the state of California who Plaintiffs in this case purport to represent. ECF No. 119, Unopposed Motion, pp 2-4. The Smith Action commenced before this Action when Plaintiffs in the Smith Action filed their initial Complaint on February 28, 2012. ECF No. 1, Complaint.

3. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs in the Smith Action allege that Defendant did not pay minimum, regular/straight-time and overtime wages to which Plaintiffs were allegedly entitled, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., and/or the California Labor Code, did not provide meal and rest periods in violation of the California's Labor Code, failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages timely upon separation, engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and also assert other claims under the Private Attorney General Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. ECF No. 119, Unopposed Motion, pp. 2-4.

4. WHEREAS, the pending settlement in the Smith Action may release and preclude some or all of the class claims in this Action and will also release and preclude Plaintiffs' individual claims in this Action if they do not opt-out of the Smith Action when they are provided the opportunity to do so through the settlement notice process in the coming months.

5. WHEREAS, the Court in this Action issued an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order setting deadlines for the Parties to: meet and confer concerning initial disclosures, early settlement, and ADR Process selection; submit a Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report; exchange Initial Disclosures; and attend a Case Management Conference. ECF No. 8.

6. WHEREAS, judicial economy would be best served by vacating the dates issued in this Court's August 18, 2014 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 8] and staying discovery and all other proceedings in this Action until the Court and the Parties to this action know whether Judge Snyder grants a Final Approval of the Class Settlement in the Smith Action.

STIPULATION AND REQUEST

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully propose as follows:

1. That the Court vacate the deadlines and proceedings set forth in its August 18, 2014 Scheduling Order [ECF No. 8] and stay discovery in this Action until Final Approval of the Class Settlement is decided in the Smith Action.

2. That the Parties will report back to this Court within fourteen (14) days after a Final Class Settlement Approval Order is entered in the Smith Action to determine whether any further proceedings, including discovery, are required in this Action and, if so, to propose a new schedule

SO REQUESTED AND STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.