Crosthwaite et al v. DJK Construction Inc

Filing 22

ORDER re 20 Second MOTION to Continue. Case Management Conference continued to 11/5/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/25/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2013)

Muriel B. Kaplan, Esq. (SBN 124607)
1 Michele R. Stafford, Esq. (SBN 172509)
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION
2 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110
San Francisco, CA 94104
3 [phone]
[phone] – Facsimile
4 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 F. G. CROSTHWAITE, et al., as Trustees of
of the OPERATING ENGINEERS’ HEALTH
12 AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.

Case No.: C12-5088 WHO

15 DJK CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California
corporation,
16
Defendant.
17

Date:
Time:
Ctrm:
Judge:

REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT;
ORDER THEREON
October 1, 2013
2:00 p.m.
2, 17th Floor
The Honorable William H. Orrick

18
19

Plaintiffs herein respectfully submit their Case Management Statement, requesting that the

20 Case Management Conference, currently on calendar for October 1, 2013, be continued for thirty
21 (30) days in anticipation of the parties resolving the matter.

22

1.

As the Court’s records will reflect, a Complaint was filed in this Action on October

23 2, 2012, to compel Defendant’s compliance with the terms of its Collective Bargaining
24 Agreement.
25

2.

Service on Defendant was effectuated on November 14, 2012, and a Proof of

26 Service of Summons was filed with the Court on November 16, 2012. (Dkt. #5).
27
28

3.

Defendant failed to plead or otherwise defend or appear in this action. On
-1REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: C12-5088 WHO

G:\WHOALL\_cv\2012\2012_05088_Crosthwaite_v_DJK_Construction_Inc\12-cv-05088-WHO-Proposed_Order_to_Continue_CMC.docx

1 December 14, 2012, the Court entered the default of the Defendant. (Dkt. #9).
2

4.

Defendant thereafter advised Plaintiffs that the general contractor on its project was

3 withholding payment, and refused to enter a payment schedule, stating that Plaintiffs should obtain
4 that payment withheld, to satisfy Defendant’s debt to Plaintiffs. Defendant provided certified
5 payroll reports to Plaintiffs to confirm the hours worked on the project, and Plaintiffs did pursue
6 payment from the contractor, who also refused to pay. Plaintiffs filed a stop payment notice and a
7 mechanics lien on the project, only to discover that a Notice of Completion had been filed some
8 months earlier, voiding Plaintiffs’ claims.
9

5.

Plaintiffs first requested a Continuance of the Case Management Conference on

10 March 28, 2013 to again attempt to obtain resolution with Defendant, through counsel who has
11 assisted Defendant in this matter since November 2012. (Dkt. #14). Counsel stated he is assisting
12 but not representing Defendant, and has made no appearance in this action. On March 29, 2013,
13 the Honorable Judge Edward M. Chen granted Plaintiffs’ request, and the Case Management
14 Conference was rescheduled to July 11, 2013. (Dkt. #15).
15

6.

On June 27, 2013, the case was reassigned to The Honorable Judge William H.

16 Orrick and the previously scheduled Case Management Conference was vacated. On July 12,
17 2013, Plaintiffs submitted their Case Management Statement. (Dkt. #17).
18

7.

On September 22, 2013, the Case Management Conference was rescheduled to

19 October 1, 2013. (Dkt. #18).
20

8.

Both parties engaged in settlement discussions and a previously agreed-upon

21 Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation was issued to Defendant’s attorney on September 13, 2013 for

22 execution by Defendant. Upon receipt of the executed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, Plaintiffs
23 will file the Judgment for entry by the Court.
24

9.

There are no issues that need to be addressed at the currently scheduled Case

25 Management Conference. In the interest of conserving costs as well as the Court’s time and
26 resources, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Case Management Conference, currently
27 scheduled for October 1, 2013, be continued for thirty (30) days to allow for Defendant’s
28

-2REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: C12-5088 WHO
G:\WHOALL\_cv\2012\2012_05088_Crosthwaite_v_DJK_Construction_Inc\12-cv-05088-WHO-Proposed_Order_to_Continue_CMC.docx

1 execution of Plaintiffs’ proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation.
///
2
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in the above
3
entitled action, and that the foregoing is true of my own knowledge.
4
Executed this 24th day of September 2013, at San Francisco, California.
5
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON
LAW CORPORATION
6
7

By:

8

/S/
Muriel B. Kaplan
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Based on the foregoing, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the currently set Case
Management Conference is hereby continued to November 5, 2013. All related deadlines are
extended accordingly.

14 Date: September 24, 2013
15

___________________________________
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: C12-5088 WHO
G:\WHOALL\_cv\2012\2012_05088_Crosthwaite_v_DJK_Construction_Inc\12-cv-05088-WHO-Proposed_Order_to_Continue_CMC.docx