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 v. Eden Medical Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 19, 2012

PAUL BENSI, BART FLORENCE, JERRY KALMAR, AND LYLE SETTER, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 PENSION 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 TRUST CONTINUE ADR, DISCOVERY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 20 DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES;

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules 7- 12 and 16-2, Plaintiffs and Defendant, 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 sixty (60) days to allow the parties additional time to complete the payroll compliance testing audit ("Audit") that is the subject of this litigation and to discuss a 2 possible resolution of this action without the necessity of further litigation, time and expense.

As the Court may be aware, the principal issue in this case is the Audit of Eden Medical Center's ("Defendant" or "hospital") books and records to determine whether Defendant had 5 made all required contributions to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund 6

("Plaintiffs" or "Trust Fund"). To help facilitate the completion of the Audit, the parties agreed 7 that Defendant would provide the Trust Fund's auditors, Lindquist LLP, with invoices received 8 from outside contractors who performed maintenance or light construction-type work at the 9 hospital between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010. Because the documents were old and 10 stored off site, on June 7, 2012, the parties sought and received a continuance of the ADR, 11 discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, to allow the hospital time to retrieve the necessary 12 invoices from storage. The hospital retrieved the documents and provided them to Plaintiffs' 13 counsel on August16, 2012. Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently forwarded the documents to the

The auditors completed a draft of the Audit on September 4, 2012, which was provided to Defendant's counsel, and the mediator, in preparation for the mediation that had been scheduled 17 for September 5, 2012 before Mediator Michael Sobel. Defendant is in the process of reviewing 18 the Audit, but will not complete their review of the Audit until after the current ADR deadline of 19 September 6, 2012. The parties agreed to continue the September 5th mediation because 20 mediation would be more productive if Defendant completed their review of the Audit prior to the 21 mediation taking place. 22

23 need additional time so Defendant can complete their review of the Audit, and the parties can 24 continue their discussions of a potential resolution of this matter. Consequently, the parties were 25 not be able to complete mediation before the current ADR deadline of September 6, 2012. 26

Further, although the parties have engaged in informal discovery, if the parties need additional 27 documents following Defendant's review of the Audit, they will not be able to propound 28 discovery requests prior to the close of fact discovery on October 15, 2012. Accordingly, the parties are requesting a continuance of the ADR deadlines, discovery deadlines, and dispositive 2 motion hearing date and related deadlines to allow the parties additional time to complete the 3

Audit and discuss a resolution of this matter. As set forth above, on June 7, 2012, the parties 4 requested an extension of the deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, which the Court 5 granted on July 9, 2012. 6

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

Scheduling Order as follows: 8

1. ADR deadline: December 5, 2012;

2. Close of fact discovery: January 13, 2013;

3. Last day for Expert Disclosure: January 27, 2013;

4. Close of Expert Discovery: February 11, 2013;

5. Opening motion for summary judgment to be filed: February 21, 2013;

6. Opposition and cross-motion due by: March 7, 2013;

7. Reply and opposition to the cross-motion due by: March 21, 2013;

8. Reply in support of the cross-motion due by: March 28, 2013;

9. Hearing on dispositive motions (if any): April 26, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: September 18, 2012

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation /s/ Linda Baldwin Jones By: LINDA BALDWIN JONES Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: September 18, 2012 21 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP By: /s/ Donald P. Sullivan DONALD P. SULLIVAN Attorneys for Defendant

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the Court orders that the case scheduling order shall be modified as follows:

1. ADR deadline: December 5, 2012;

2. Close of fact discovery: January 13, 2013;

3. Last day for Expert Disclosure: January 27, 2013;

4. Close of Expert Discovery: February 11, 2013;

5. Opening motion for summary judgment to be filed: February 21, 2013;

6. Opposition and cross-motion due by: March 7, 2013;

7. Reply and opposition to the cross-motion due by: March 21, 2013;

8. Reply in support of the cross-motion due by: March 28, 2013;

9. Hearing on dispositive motions (if any): April 26, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

All other aspects of the Court's scheduling order not specifically modified above shall

14 remain in full force and effect. In addition the Court orders: 15

20120919

© 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.