UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 19, 2011
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
CEMENT MASONS PENSION TRUST FUND
AS MODIFIED FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CEMENT
MASONS VACATION/HOLIDAY TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CEMENT MASONS APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
PAUL T. BECK CONTRACTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation
1001 Marina Village Parkway
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER
Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501-1091 Case No. C 10-01492 (EDL) 510.337.1001 Case No. C 10-01493 (EDL)
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their 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 AND RETRAINING TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL T. BECK CONTRACTORS, INC, a California Corporation. Defendant.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees, in their capacities as
Trustees of the Cement Masons Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, Cement 14
Masons Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, Cement Masons Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund 15 for Northern California, and Cement Masons Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund for Northern 16
California and Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees, in their capacities as Trustees of the Laborers 17
Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for 18
Northern California, Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, and Laborers Training 19 and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Paul T. 20
Beck Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant"), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 21 stipulate and request that the Court issue an Order to modify Pretrial Order for Court Trial 22
(Document No. 36, Case No. 10-1492; Document No. 39, Case No. 10-1493) (hereinafter "Pretrial 23
Order") for the cases 10-1492 and 10-1493 by adding an additional 90 days to all of the 24 deadlines/dates therein, including the trial date, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4). 25
This order also modifies
the deadlines for consolidated cases 10-5539 and 10-5540.
2 upon a showing of "good cause". As the Ninth Circuit has stated, this "good cause" standard 3
"primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." The district court may 4 modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 5 seeking the extension. F.R.C.P. 16(b); Claudine Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 6
In this case, both parties seek the amendment of the Pretrial Order. On July 26, 2011, the
Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints in these actions. (Document No. 43, Case 9
In accordance with F.R.C.P. 16(b), the Court may modify or amend a scheduling order
604 (9th Cir. 1992); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. CA 1999). No. 10-1492; Document No. 43, Case No. 10-1493). The same day, July 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed 10 and served their First Amended Complaints, which added two new defendants to these actions: James Ray Beck, individually and doing business as JRB Grading and Paving, and JRB Grading 12 and Paving. (Document No. 46, Case No. 10-1492; Document No. 45, Case No. 10-1493.) The 13 last day for James Ray Beck and JRB Grading and Paving to answer the First Amended 14
Complaints is August 15, 2011. Under the current Pretrial Order, the discovery cut-off in these 15 actions is August 29, 2011 (Document No. 36, Case No. 10-1492; Document No. 39, Case No. 10-16
1493). With only two weeks between the date to answer and the discovery cut-off, neither party 17 would have an opportunity to propound discovery with respect to the claims related to the new 18 defendants in the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, an 19 extension of the discovery period and corresponding trial deadlines is warranted. 20
21 the parties hereby respectfully request that the Court modify the Pretrial Order by adding an 22 additional 90 days to all of the deadlines/dates therein, as follows: 23
November 28, 2011 Expert discovery cut-off
January 26, 2012 Last day to complete mediation pursuant to Court Order.
January 30, 2012 Last day to hear dispositive motions
April 5, 2012 Last day to meet and confer prior to the pretrial conference
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS AND TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER
Because this Stipulated Request to Modify the Pretrial Order is supported by good cause,
November 28, 2011 Discovery cut-off
April 16, 2012 Last day to file joint pretrial statement including pretrial disclosures; serve and file trial briefs and
motions in limine; serve and file an exhibit list and exchange exhibits
April 25, 2012 Last day to file objections to exhibits and
witnesses or oppositions to motions in limine May 7, 2012
Pretrial conference and hearing on motions in limine at 2:00 p.m.
May 29, 2012 Court trial
Additionally, the parties hereby stipulate that if and only if the Court declines to grant the
Stipulated Request to Modify the Pretrial Order, each party will not oppose the other party's right 9 to take said party's deposition after the close of discovery.
Dated: August 15, 2011
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation By: /s/ Kristina M. Zinnen KRISTINA M. ZINNEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: August 15, 2011 17
BOHNEN, ROSENTHAL & KREEFT By: /s/ Sergio H. Parra
SERGIO H. PARRA Attorneys for Defendant
Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.