Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

HENNEBERRY v. SIU PACIFIC DISTRICT-PMA PENSION PLAN

United States District Court, N.D. California


March 5, 2004.

WILLIAM S. HENNEBERRY, Plaintiff
v.
SIU PACIFIC DISTRICT-PMA PENSION PLAN, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge

JUDGMENT

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 opposition.

  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 time-barred. Page 2

  For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the file. [Docket #8]

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040305

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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