Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Gil Crosthwaite and Russ Burns, In Their v. Paul T. Beck Contractors

November 15, 2011

GIL CROSTHWAITE AND RUSS BURNS, IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE
OPERATING ENGINEERS' HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PAUL T. BECK CONTRACTORS, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JAMES RAY BECK,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND DBA JRB GRADING & PAVING
AKA JRB GRADING & PAVING, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Samuel Conti

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

Date: November 18, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 1, 17th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly request that the Case Management Conference scheduled 26 for November 18, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. be continued for approximately 45 days, as follows:

1. On May 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint to include Defendants James Ray Beck, individually and doing business as JRB Grading & Paving, also known as JRB Grading & Paving, LLC.

2. On June 24, 2011, Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint.

3. On July 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Case No. C11-0454 PJH (Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. James Ray Beck, 5 individually, and dba JRB Grading & Paving aka JRB Grading & Paving, LLC) should be Related 6 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. 7

4. On July 22, 2011, the Court issued a Related Case Order, relating the two matters before the Honorable Samuel Conti.

5. The Parties are currently engaged in active settlement discussions and are working 10 toward an informal resolution of this Matter. It is the consensus of the Parties that if a settlement 11 can be reached outside of Court, it will be reached in the next several weeks. All Defendants are 12 aware that if a resolution cannot be reached informally, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Summary Judgment against all Defendants named in the Amended Complaint.

6. Given the state of the Parties' settlement discussions, there is nothing to discuss at a Case Management Conference at the present time.

7. We therefore jointly request that the Case Management Conference be continued for approximately 45 days to allow the Parties time to conclude their settlement discussions. All 18 related deadlines (such as Rule 26 disclosures) shall also be continued along with the Case Management Conference.

Dated: November 10, 2011 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAWCORPORATION 21 22 By: _____________/s/_________________ Blake E. Williams 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: November 10, 2011 BOHNEN, ROSENTHAL & KREEFT 25 By: _____________/s/_________________ 24 26 Sergio H. Parra Attorneys for Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The currently set Case Management Conference is hereby continued to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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