Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Nevada AFL-CIO v. Bombard Mechanical, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 20, 2019

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,
v.
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

          KAMER 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

         Pursuant 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).

         1. Initial Matters:

         A. Meeting:

         Pursuant 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 Respondents.

         B. Statement for Reasons Different Discovery Time Period:

         Pursuant 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.

         The 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.

         Petitioner 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.[1] 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.

         Thus, 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.

         C. Certification as to Alternative Dispute Resolution:

         The 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.

         D. Certification as to Alternative Forms of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.