Jackson v. Fastenal Company, No. 1:2020cv00345 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER re 35 Stipulation to Modify the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/12/2023.(Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00345-JLT-SAB Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 10 11 FASTENAL COMPANY, 12 Defendant. (ECF No. 35) 13 14 Plaintiff Mieshia Marie Jackson brings this action on behalf of herself and others 15 similarly situated against Defendant Fastenal Company, alleging various wage and hour 16 violations under California state law. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an 17 unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, followed by a motion for final approval of class 18 action settlement on September 9, 2022. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) Following the October 13, 2022 19 hearing on the motions (see ECF No. 28), the Court issued findings and recommendations to 20 partially-grant the motions on October 19, 2022 (ECF No. 29). More specifically, the Court 21 recommended the class action settlement be approved but with reductions to the attorneys’ fee 22 requests. (ECF No. 29 at 34–35.) The deadline to file objections to the findings and 23 recommendations was November 2, 2022. (See id. at 36.) On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations, arguing that the attorneys’ fees were reduced in 25 error. (ECF No. 33.) The matter has been submitted and is currently pending before the District 26 Judge. 27 Currently before this Court is the parties’ instant joint stipulation, filed May 11, 2023, 28 and titled, “Joint Stipulation to Modify the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations 1 1 Recommending Granting in Part Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc and 2 Plaintiff’s Agreement to Withdraw Appeal to the District Court Judge if the Magistrate Signs this 3 Compromise Stipulation and Order.” (ECF No. 35 (all caps removed).) 4 As to this stipulation, because Plaintiffs’ motions for final approval and attorneys’ fees 5 are fully briefed and submitted, with findings and recommendations pending before the District 6 Judge since November 2022, the instant stipulation, filed six months after the deadline to file 7 objections to the findings and recommendations, is untimely. The Court notes the parties appear 8 to acknowledge the untimeliness of the filing themselves, referring to the stip as “nunc pro tunc.” 9 More importantly, however, because the matter is now before the District Judge for final 10 approval and consideration, it would be inappropriate for this Court to consider and rule on the 11 instant stipulation, and to potentially alter its findings and recommendations, which are likely 12 already being considered by the District Judge. Furthermore, and unfortunately, given the 13 judicial emergency the Eastern District of California continues to experience, see Lawrence J. 14 O’Neill, An Important Letter to Congress from the Judges of the Eastern District of California 15 Regarding Our Caseload Crisis, United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Jun. 16 19, 2018), http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/ 17 Judgeship%20Letter%20June%202018.pdf, the Court cannot provide a timeframe under which 18 civil matters presently before district judges in this District, such as the instant motion for final 19 approval, may be finally adjudicated. 20 Nonetheless, the Court is not unsympathetic to the parties’ concerns about expediently 21 providing the settlement class members the monetary relief they need ; indeed, the Court notes 22 the parties’ stipulation appears meritorious. To this point, the Court reminds the parties that they 23 may yet elect to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction as to the instant matter or the case in its 24 entirety. If the parties so choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, this Court will 25 expediently issue a final ruling on the parties’ pending motions for final approval and attorneys’ 26 fees, while also taking the instant stipulation under consideration. Additionally, one of our 27 district judges has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit and if that nomination goes through we 28 will be down to one district judge. Criminal matters must take priority due to Constitutional 2 1 requirements. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ joint stipulation seeking to 2 3 modify the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations and other relief (ECF No. 35) is hereby 4 DEFERRED to the District Judge for further consideration in connection with the parties’ 5 motion for final approval, motion for attorneys’ fees, and original objections to the findings and 6 recommendations—all of which remain pending before the District Judge at this time. However, 7 if the parties elect to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, this Court shall forthwith 8 adjudicate the parties’ pending final approval motions, incorporating its consideration of the 9 parties’ May 11, 2023 stipulated request into any final order. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: May 12, 2023 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
