JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION; ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Defendant PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc. which will do business in California as PrimeFlight of DE, Inc. (hereinafter, "PrimeFlight — DE" or "Defendant") and Plaintiff HERTA GUADALUPE KUHN (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") (hereinafter, collectively, the "Parties") hereby submit this updated joint status report pursuant to the Court's October 29, 2018 "Order Requiring Service of Process and Joint Status Report" (ECF No. 9).

A. Nature of the Case

Plaintiff, a former hourly-paid employee of Defendant, alleges that Defendant did not provide her with meal periods, did not authorize and permit rest periods, did not pay all wages due at the separation of employment, and did not furnish accurate, itemized wage statements, all as required by California law. Plaintiff seeks unpaid meal and rest period "premiums," statutory penalties pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e) in relation to wage statement violations, "wages as a penalty" pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 203 for failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. Plaintiff also seeks penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

Plaintiff makes her allegations on behalf of a proposed class consisting of [a]ll current and former California employees of Defendants since the date four (4) years prior to the filing of [her complaint]."

Defendant denies all of Plaintiff's material allegations, including that her claims may proceed on a class, collective, or representative basis, and has asserted a number of affirmative defenses as set forth in its Answer.

B. Progress in the service of process.

PrimeFlight — DE has been served and has appeared. Defendant "Prime Flight Aviation Services, Inc., an Ohio Corporation," which is a separate company from PrimeFlight — DE, under separate ownership and management, has not yet been served.

C. Possible joinder of additional parties.

The Parties do not presently anticipate joining additional parties.

D. Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings.

Defendant has conducted additional investigation and has determined that it has additional potential defenses, including preemption pursuant to the federal Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1371, et seq., the federal Railway Labor Act (hereinafter, the "RLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151, et seq., and the federal Labor Management Relations Act (hereinafter, the "LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 185(a). RLA and LMRA preemption defenses potentially arise from the fact that some members of Plaintiff's proposed class (though not Plaintiff herself) are and were members of labor unions who had collective bargaining agreements with Defendant. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate that Defendant should be permitted to file an amended answer pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within fourteen (14) days of the Court's entry of an order so permitting. A proposed order is included herewith for such purpose.

E. Jurisdiction and venue.

The Parties stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction and venue, except that Defendant reserves its right to move to compel arbitration, and to challenge the Court's subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see section F below).

F. Whether a settlement conference is scheduled.

The Parties have agreed to an early mediation. This mediation will take place on February 28, 2018, with Alan Berkowitz, Esq. of Judicate West.

G. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.

The Parties request that the Court defer issuing a scheduling order and that the Court instead set a deadline of March 15, 2019, for the Parties to submit a further joint status report.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the Court orders that: (1) Defendant PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc. which will do business in California as PrimeFlight — DE, Inc. may file an amended answer within fourteen (14) days of this order; and (2) the Parties shall file a further joint status report not later than March 15, 2019. Such status report shall state whether the Parties have settled at early mediation. If the parties have not settled by such date, then the further joint status report shall further specifically address all items, including a schedule and plan for discovery and anticipated motions, and any other matters deferred by the parties in their previously-submitted joint status reports.

IT IS SO ORDERED.