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.

Paul Bensi, Bart Florence, Jerry Kalmar, and Lyle Setter, In Their Capacities As Trustees of the v. Eden Medical Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 9, 2012

PAUL BENSI, BART FLORENCE, JERRY KALMAR, AND LYLE SETTER, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE
STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 PENSION TRUST FUND,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EDEN MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE ADR, DISCOVERY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES;

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules 7- and 16-2, Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully 27 request that the ADR deadlines, discovery deadlines, dispositive motion hearing date and related 28 deadlines be continued for ninety (90) days to allow the parties additional time for Defendant to WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alameda, California 94501 (510) 337-1001 A Professional Corporation provide the documents necessary to complete the payroll compliance testing audit ("Audit") that 2 is the subject of this litigation and to discuss a possible resolution of this action without the 3 necessity of further litigation, time and expense. 4 financial records to confirm that the Defendant has made the required contributions to the 6 Trustees of the Trust Fund, have contended that the collective bargaining agreement to which 8

At the heart of this lawsuit is a dispute about the proper scope of an audit of Defendant's Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund ("Trust Fund"). Plaintiffs, who are the 7

Defendant is a party entitles the Trust Fund's auditors access to Defendant's cash disbursement 9 journals. Defendant has contended that because its cash disbursement journals are kept on a 10 region-wide basis, it is unable to produce the information without producing extensive financial 11 information from its affiliates. Additionally, because the journals contain all payment 12 information, they necessarily contain payroll information of non-Local 39 members and well as 13 information about payments to patients. In response to Defendant's concern, the Trust Fund 14 agreed to accept a vendor list in lieu of the cash disbursement journals, as well as reserving the 15 right to review additional documents following the auditor's review of the Defendant's vendor 16 list. 17 need for complete documentation and Defendant's need to protect the financial privacy of third-19 parties and to avoid producing irrelevant financial documentation. To facilitate the completion of 20 the audit, Defendant is in the process of collecting invoices received from outside contractors who 21 performed maintenance or light construction-type work at the hospital between January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2010. Because these invoices are old, they are stored off-site. Defendant is in the 23 process of retrieving them and anticipates that it will take approximately one month to complete 24 the process. Once the documents have been retrieved, Defendant will provide them to the Trust 25

Fund's auditors for review. The auditors will then be able to determine if Defendant has made all 26 of the required contributions to the Trust Fund. 27

28 they need additional time so that the Audit can be completed. Consequently, the parties will not

The parties agreed to proceed with the audit in this manner, which satisfies the auditors'

Although the parties have been diligent in working towards a resolution of this matter, be able to complete mediation before the current mediation deadline of June 8, 2012. 2

Additionally, if Plaintiffs need additional documents or information following Defendant's 3 informal production at the end of June, they will not be able to propound discovery requests prior 4 to the close of fact discovery on July 16, 2012. Accordingly, the parties are requesting a 5 continuance of the ADR deadlines, discovery deadlines, and dispositive motion hearing date and 6 related deadlines to allow the parties additional time to complete the Audit and discuss a 7 resolution of this matter. The parties have not previously requested any extensions of the 8 deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order. 9

In light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court modify its

Scheduling Order as follows: 11

1. ADR deadline: September 6, 2012;

2. Close of fact discovery: October 15, 2012;

3. Last day for Expert Disclosure: October 29, 2012

4. Close of Expert Discovery: November 13, 2012;

5. Opening motion for summary judgment to be filed: November 21, 2012;

6. Opposition and cross-motion due by: December 7, 2012;

7. Reply and opposition to the cross-motion due by: December21, 2012;

8. Reply in support of the cross-motion due by: December 28, 2012;

9. Hearing on dispositive motions (if any): January 25, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: June 7, 2012

/s/ Linda Baldwin Jones

By: LINDA BALDWIN JONES

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 7, 2012 24

DICKER LLP

26

By: /s/ Donald P. Sullivan

DONALD P. SULLIVAN

Attorneys for Defendant A Professional Corporation

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the Court orders that the case scheduling order shall be 3 modified as follows: 4 1. ADR deadline: September 6, 2012; 5 2. Close of fact discovery: October 15, 2012; 6 3. Last day for Expert Disclosure: October 29, 2012 7 4. Close of Expert Discovery: November 13, 2012; 8 5. Opening motion for summary judgment to be filed: November 21, 2012; 9 6. Opposition and cross-motion due by: December 7, 2012; 10 7. Reply and opposition to the cross-motion due by: December21, 2012; 11 8. Reply in support of the cross-motion due by: December 28, 2012; 12 9. Hearing on dispositive motions (if any): January 25, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

All other aspects of the Court's scheduling order not specifically modified above shall remain in full force and effect. In addition the Court orders: 15

July 9 Dated: June ___, 2012

20120709

© 1992-2012 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.