UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 15, 2010
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, IN THEIR 16 CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; AND LABORERS TRAINING
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; NORTHERN CONFERENCE; CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
LABORERS FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF LABORERS' LOCAL 139 PLAINTIFFS,
CAL-KIRK LANDSCAPING, INC.,
CALIFORNIA COURTROOM: TH CORPORATION, C, 15 FLOOR DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONTINUE RETRAININGFOR [PROPOSED]
Time: 1:30 p.m.
2 the initial Case Management Conference scheduled for November 18, 2009 be continued for 60 3 days. Plaintiffs and Defendant are in the process of attempting to resolve this matter. Plaintiffs 4 filed the original Complaint and Petition to Confirm in this action on July 9, 2008. On or around Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2, Plaintiffs and Defendant hereby request that November 2008, Defendant agreed to allow Plaintiffs' auditors to audit their records to determine whether any amounts were due and owing as a result of the audit. Plaintiffs thereafter conducted an audit of Defendant's records and found a number of delinquencies owed by Defendant. On or around February 2009, Plaintiffs submitted their audit findings to Defendant to allow Defendant the opportunity to review those results and challenge any delinquencies it believed were in error.
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Breach of Contract, Damages, and Breach of Fiduciary Defendant. On or around June 3, 2009, Plaintiffs were notified that Defendant had retained legal counsel on or around May 21, 2009. On June 4, at the request of the parties, the Court granted Complaint to July 31, 2009. The parties thereafter stipulated to two additional extensions of time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to August As a result of the documentation that Defendant submitted to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have made adjustments to the audit worksheets. Plaintiffs and Defendant are currently engaged in a review of the revised audit worksheets and are attempting to resolve the matter without further litigation. The parties are requesting a further continuance at this time because the working attorneys for both parties have recently returned from extended medical leaves and the parties are continuing to partake in meaningful settlement discussions. A further continuance would promote judicial efficiency because the parties are very close to reaching a settlement and anticipate they will reach a settlement in the next 60 days.
After receiving no response from Defendant, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for Duty on May 7, 2009. On or around May 15, 2009, Plaintiffs received documentation from Defendant an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended 31, 2009 and September 9, 2009, respectively. Defendant timely answered on September 9, 2009.
Based on the above, Plaintiffs and Defendant respectfully request that
the initial case
management conference, currently scheduled for December 15, 2010, be
continued for 60 days, in order to allow the parties time to attempt
to resolve the matter without further litigation.
Dated: December 6, 2010
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
KRISTINA M. ZINNEN Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: December 6, 2010
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1
Attorney for Defendant
Based upon the foregoing Stipulated Request to Continue Case Management Conference,
17 the Court orders the continuance of the case management conference for 60 days, or as soon 18 thereafter as a court date is available. In addition, the Court Orders: The CMC is reset for 2/23/11 at 1:30 p.m. A Joint CMC
statement shall be filed by 2/16/11. ES DIST T RIC Dated:12/14/10 A T S T C D The Honorable Edward O
U M. Chen E United States DistrictR T ORDERED
Court Judge T I N IT IS SO U AS MODIFIED A I N N Edward R O Judge O M. Chen
R I F E A T H L R C N F DISTRICT O 12960767v.1
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.