United States District Court, D. Nevada
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 525, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA AFL-CIO, Petitioner,
BOMBARD MECHANICAL, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and DOES I-V, ROES VI-X, Respondents.
DOBBERSTEIN LAW GROUP Eric Dobberstein, Esq. #3712 Rhonda
Long, Esq. #10921 Dobberstein Law Group Francis J. Morton,
Esq. #2380 Attorneys for Petitioner United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of The Plumbing & Pipe Fitting
Industry of The United States and Canada, Local 525, Las
Vegas, Nevada AFL-CIO
ZUCKER ABBOTT Gregory J. Kamer #0270 Edwin A. Keller, Jr.
#6013 Jody M. Florence #6645 Dare E. Heisterman #14060
Attorneys for Respondent Bombard Mechanical, LLC
STIPULATED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN, SCHEDULING ORDER
SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 26-1(B) AND REQUEST
TO STAY DISCOVERY
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26
and Local Rule 26-1, the parties submit the following
proposed Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, which
contains a request to stay discovery until after the Court
rules on Petitioner's Motion to Compel Arbitration, which
is currently due on or before July 20, 2019. See
Court's Order of 5/21/19 (ECF No. 13).
to FRCP 26(f), the parties, by and through their respective
counsel, conferred telephonically on June 6, 2019. Eric
Dobberstein and Francis Morton represented Petitioner, and
Gregory Kamer, Edwin Keller, and Dare Heisterman represented
Statement for Reasons Different Discovery Time
to LR 26-1(a), the parties assert that the unique procedural
and substantive issues involved in this case warrant a
temporary stay of discovery to preserve client resources and
to avoid engaging in potentially unnecessary discovery. By
way of a brief summary, Petitioner filed this action under
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 185, and the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
§ 4, seeking to compel arbitration of a union grievance
against Respondent pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement (“CBA”) between the parties pertaining
to computer assisted drawing (“CAD) work and,
concerning, in part, whether Respondent: (1) failed to secure
workers in accordance with the CBA; (2) failed to pay
employees performing covered work in accordance with the CBA,
and (3) subcontracted covered work to non-signatory employers
who failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the CBA.
See Petition to Compel Arbitration
(“Petition”) (ECF No. 1) at 3, 5 & Exhibit 2
thereto. Respondent answered the Petition and asserted two
counter claims. See Answer to Petition, Counter
Claims and Jury Demand (“Answer”) (ECF No. 9). In
its Answer and Counter Claims, Respondent contends, among
other things, that Petitioner's grievance is: not subject
to arbitration as it: (1) involves unfair labor practices
charges filed by Respondent, dismissed by the Regional
Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 28,
and pending appeal by Respondent before the National Labor
Relations Board General Counsel's Office of Appeals,
which warrants at least a stay of the matter pending a ruling
on Petitioner's Motion to Compel; (2) is part of a course
of conduct made unlawful under Section 8(b)(4) of the
National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(b)(4) and remediable by a private right of action
under Section 303 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 187; and (3)
violates Petitioner's contractual obligations associated
with an October 28, 2013 decision of the Industrial Relations
Council for the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry denying the
Petitioner's request to add CAD work to Article II,
Section 2.2 of the CBA, which are subject to enforcement by a
court of competent jurisdiction. Id. at 2-5, 10-14
& Exhibits 3-4 thereto.
parties submit that under FRCP 26(c), a district court may
stay discovery “for good cause shown” with the
power to stay proceedings being incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v.
N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court has
already set a deadline of July 20, 2019 for the Petitioner to
file a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which it intends to do.
See Court's Order of 5/21/19 (ECF No. 13).
Respondent estimates needing 30 days to respond to said
Motion with the Petitioner requiring 21 days to submit its
reply. Thus, the parties believe the Motion would be fully
briefed by September 10, 2019.
believes a ruling in its favor on the Motion to Compel
Arbitration is potentially dispositive of most, if not all,
of the issues in this matter and can be decided without
additional discovery. While Respondent does not agree with
Petitioner's position, it contends that the unfair labor
practices pending before the National Labor Relations
Board's Office of Appeals is a separate basis warranting
a stay of the matter. Thus, for differing reasons, both parties
concur that the results of the Court's ruling on the
upcoming Motion to Compel Arbitration will have a significant
impact on the need for and scope of discovery, such that a
stay of discovery until the Court rules on said Motion will
preserve client resources, avoid engaging in potentially
unnecessary discovery, and is consistent with the objectives
of FRCP 1 to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.
the parties have agreed and seek the Court's permission
to stay the start of discovery until after the
Petitioner's Motion to Compel Arbitration is filed,
briefed, and ruled upon by the Court with the parties
committing to submit an updated Joint Discovery Plan and
Scheduling Order within 7 days after the Court issues its
Order on Petitioner's Motion to Compel Arbitration
setting forth the specific dates for discovery deadlines
proposed herein for the Court's approval.
Certification as to Alternative Dispute Resolution:
parties certify they discussed the possibility of resolution
of this case generally, and through means of alternative
dispute resolution. They believe an early neutral evaluation
of this matter could be beneficial but note this matter does
not fall under one or more of the statutes listed in LR 16-6.
Certification as to Alternative Forms of ...