JOINT REQUEST AND ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING JOINDER OF NECESSARY DEFENDANT

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

Plaintiff CHARMAINE DE LOS REYES and Defendant RUCHMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. hereby jointly seek an order from the Court issuing a stay of proceedings in the above captioned matter until such a time that joinder of a necessary defendant may occur. Plaintiff asserts, as set forth in more detail below, that the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") is a potential Defendant in this action and a necessary party to the suit, but that legal action may not be brought against the DEA in this forum until Plaintiff has completed the multi-step exhaustion process which is a prerequisite to filing such an action against a Federal Agency. Defendant does not oppose the joinder. As such, the Parties jointly request a stay be issued and that initial dates and deadlines previously set by this Court be vacated.

RECITALS/STIPULATION

This is a wrongful termination/disability discrimination employment case. Plaintiff De Los Reyes worked at the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration's ("DEA") San Francisco location as an Accounting Clerk from 2008-2013. She was placed in this position and employed/paid by third party contractor/private employer Ruchman and Associates, Inc. ("Ruchman").

In late April of 2013, Plaintiff commenced a leave of absence from work due to her alleged disability (major depression). She provided Ruchman, who in turn provided to the DEA, information regarding her requested leave. On June 3, 2013, and while Plaintiff was still absent from work, her employment was terminated.

Plaintiff asserts that both Ruchman and the DEA were involved in the decision to terminate her employment, and that this termination was in violation of California and Federal disability laws.

Defendant Ruchman denies that it violated any State or Federal law and asserts that it is not liable in this action.

Plaintiff asserts that given this information and given the nature of her employment (hired and paid by Ruchman, physically working at the DEA, and reporting to supervisors at both Ruchman and the DEA) both entities were her "joint employers" and that both Ruchman and the DEA may be liable for the wrongful termination/disability discrimination alleged in Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff's counsel asserts that due to an impending statute of limitations deadline, Plaintiff was forced to file the above captioned action solely against private employer Defendant Ruchman.

Plaintiff could not include the DEA as a named Defendant in this action, because she has not yet completed the multi-step exhaustion process which is a prerequisite to filing such an action against a Federal Agency (see http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fedprocess.cfm).

Plaintiff is currently in the process of proceeding through necessary pre-litigation procedures against the DEA. Plaintiff's counsel requested a time estimate from the DEA regarding the length of these pre-litigation procedures, but was informed that no time-frame for completion of the process could be given. Plaintiff's counsel has and will continue to update Ruchman's counsel on the progress of such proceedings.

Due the above, counsel for both Parties have concluded that a stay of this present action would be appropriate until such a time when the DEA may be joined as a named Defendant to this action.

The Parties request that the Court issue a stay of proceedings and that initial dates and deadlines previously set by this Court be vacated.

ORDER

Based on the above joint request and good cause appearing therefore, the Court ORDERS the following: The Initial Case Management and ADR Deadlines previously set by this Court in its Order of February 5, 2014 are hereby VACATED. The Parties are ordered to file a joint status update on or before July 1, 2014, and every three months thereafter, with respect to the potential joinder of the DEA as a Defendant and any other matters germane to this case. Plaintiff shall promptly serve the DEA upon the exhaustion of the pre-litigation procedures mandated by the DEA if plaintiff's claim has not been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.