United States District Court, N.D. California
March 5, 2004.
WILLIAM S. HENNEBERRY, Plaintiff
SIU PACIFIC DISTRICT-PMA PENSION PLAN, Defendant
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge
Plaintiff'S lawsuit is time barred. Accordingly, judgment is entered
in favor of defendant SIU Pacific District-PMA Pension Plan (the "Plan")
and against plaintiff Willliam S. Henneberry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant SIU Pacific District-PMA Pension Plan (the "Plan") has moved
to dismiss plaintiff Willliam S. Henneberry's claims against it, on the
grounds that his lawsuit, filed four years and 8-1/2 months after
defendant denied plaintiff's benefit claim, is time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The Plan originally filed this motion
over two months ago, and Henneberry failed to file any written
The Court made every effort to be flexible for Henneberry's failure
because he is appearing pro se. Counsel for the Plan contacted
Henneberry to check if he intended to appear at the hearing on January
30, 2004. Henneberry said he was abroad, and with his approval the
hearing was rescheduled for February 27, 2004. Henneberry once again
failed to file an opposition. Appearing by telephone at the hearing,
Henneberry argued that his complaint was filed only eight months after
the statute of limitations had run. When asked if he had tried to file
any opposition with the Court, he said that he had tried to fax something
over that morning, but the fax machine was broken.
Henneberry's last-minute response and unconvincing explanations fail to
persuade the Court that he states a cognizable claim. The Court construes
his statements to be an admission that he failed to file his original
complaint before the statute of limitations had run. His claims are thus
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The Clerk shall close the file. [Docket #8]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.