Crosthwaite et al v. Paul T. Beck Contractors, Inc

Filing 13

JOINT MOTION AND ORDER Case Management Conference set for is continued to 7/23/10 11/12/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 7/19/10. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2010)

Download PDF
Crosthwaite et al v. Paul T. Beck Contractors, Inc Doc. 13 1 Muriel B. Kaplan, Esq. (SBN 124607) Michele R. Stafford, Esq. (SBN 172509) 2 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 882-7900 4 (415) 882-9287 Facsimile 5 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: C10-0151 SC JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE Date: Time: Courtroom: July 23, 2010 10:00 a.m. 1, 17th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Honorable Samuel Conti 10 GIL CROSTHWAITE and RUSS BURNS, in their respective capacities as Trustees of the 11 OPERATING ENGINEERS' HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 PAUL T. BECK CONTRACTORS, INC., a 15 California corporation, 16 17 18 Defendant. Judge: Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly request that the Case Management Conference currently 19 scheduled for July 23, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. be continued for approximately ninety (90) days, as 20 follows: 21 1. As the Court is aware, Plaintiffs and Defendant have been discussing resolution of 22 all amounts due to the Trust Funds as Defendant was contemplating receivership. There does not 23 appear to be a dispute as to what is owed, but it is uncertain what funds may be available. 24 2. The parties participated in multiple ADR telephone conferences with Daniel 25 Bolling, to ensure that the case was moving forward while Defendant was analyzing its financial 26 situation. Defendant was considering bankruptcy as an alternate to receivership if it was required. 27 28 P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Paul T. Beck Contractors\Pleadings\C10-0151 SC - Joint Req to Continue CMC 071510.doc 1 3. The most recent ADR conference call was June 10, 2010. Defendant confirmed that 2 it was not filing for bankruptcy and that a receiver was appointed. The receiver was going to begin 3 valuing all of Defendant's assets to ascertain what funds would be available to pay Plaintiffs and 4 other creditors. Mr. Bolling advised that based on the status he would recommend to the Court that 5 the case be referred to mediation, but with an extended deadline so that the valuation could be 6 completed. 7 4. There is nothing to discuss at a Case Management Conference at the present time 8 as the parties are cooperating with one another to move toward resolution. The only issue at 9 present is the value of Defendant's assets, which is being ascertained at the current time. 10 5. We therefore jointly request that the Case Management Conference be continued 11 for ninety (90) days to allow the parties ample time to resolve this matter, or in the alternative, set 12 and participate in alternative dispute resolution. 13 Dated: July 15, 2010 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 By: ____________/s/__________________ Andrew B. Kreeft Attorneys for Defendant Dated: July 15, 2010 By: ____________/s/__________________ Michele R. Stafford Attorneys for Plaintiffs BOHNEN, ROSENTHAL & KREEFT SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAWCORPORATION November 12, 2010 10:00 a.m. __________________________ at __________________. All related deadlines are extended S ISTRIC ES D TC AT T The currently set Case Management Conference is hereby continued to 24 accordingly. 25 UNIT ED RT U O July 19, 2010 26 Date: _________________________ 27 28 ER N F D IS T IC T O R P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Paul T. Beck Contractors\Pleadings\C10-0151 SC - Joint Req to Continue CMC 071510.doc A C LI FO Judge S amuel C onti R NIA __________________________________ ERED O ORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS S NO RT H

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?