Boards of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Health Care Plan et al v. Bay Area Balancing and Cleanrooms, Inc.

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Denying 85 Stipulation to Continue Case Mgt Conference. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2016)

Download PDF
1 Michele R. Stafford, Esq. (SBN 172509) Erica J. Russell, Esq. (SBN 274494) 2 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110 3 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 882-7900 4 Facsimile: (415) 882-9287 mstafford@sjlawcorp.com 5 erussell@sjlawcorp.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 7 Health Care Plan, et al. 8 Joseph W. McCarthy, Esq. (SBN 16443) JOSEPH W. MCCARTHY, A LAW CORPORATION 9 400 Reed Street/PO Box 58032 Santa Clara, California 95050 10 Telephone: (408) 727-4111 Facsimile: (408) 727-4343 11 joe@mccarthylawcorp.com 12 Attorneys for Defendant, Bay Area Balancing & Cleanrooms, Inc. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 18 BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104 HEALTH CARE PLAN, et al., 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case No.: C14-01739 HSG JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Plaintiffs, Date: May 24, 2016 Time: 2:00 p.m. Ctrm: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue Judge: The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam v. BAY AREA BALANCING AND CLEANROOMS, INC., Defendant. The parties to this matter, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby 25 respectfully request that the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for May 24, 2016, 26 at 2:00 p.m. in the above-captioned Court, be continued for approximately forty-five to sixty (4527 60) days, as follows: 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No.: C14-01739 HSG 1. 1 As the Court’s records will reflect, this action was filed on April 15, 2014 to 2 compel Defendant to comply with the terms of its Collective Bargaining Agreement. [Dkt. No. 1]. 2. 3 The Clerk entered Defendant’s Default on June 13, 2014 [Dkt. No. 13], which was 4 subsequently set aside through stipulation of the parties on March 2, 2015. [Dkt. No. 36]. 3. 5 Defendant’s counsel substituted into this matter to replace Defendant’s prior 6 counsel on April 1, 2015. [Dkt. No. 42]. 4. 7 On April 1, 2015, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint, and a Counterclaim 8 against Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local Union No. 104 (“Union”). 9 [Dkt. No. 43]. 10 5. The Union obtained separate counsel on April 15, 2015. [Dkt. No. 44]. 11 6. Through stipulation of the parties, the Union was granted an extension of time to 12 file its response to the Counterclaim, up to and including May 13, 2015. [Dkt. No. 46]. 7. 13 On May 12, 2015, Defendant filed a Voluntary Dismissal of the Counterclaim 14 against the Union. [Dkt. No. 47]. 8. 15 On August 11, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim 16 against the Union. [Dkt. No. 58]. On August 12, 2015, Defendant and the Union filed a Stipulation 17 for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim [Dkt. No. 59]. 9. 18 On August 13, 2015, Defendant re-noticed the hearing on its Motion for Leave to 19 File Counterclaim. [Dkt. No. 61]. 10. 20 Also on August 13, 2015, the Court granted Defendant’s and the Union’s 21 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim. [Dkt. No. 22 62]. The Court set the Union’s Response deadline to September 3, 2015, and Defendant’s Reply 23 deadline to September 10, 2015. 11. 24 The Union filed its Response on September 3, 2015, and Defendant filed its Reply 25 on September 9, 2015. [Dkt. Nos. 65-66]. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File 26 Counterclaim was held on October 15, 2015, and the matter was taken under submission by the 27 Court. 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No.: C14-01739 HSG 1 12. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against 2 Defendant. [Dkt. Nos. 68-75]. 3 13. On November 10, 2015, the Court rescheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 4 Summary Judgment to December 10, 2015. [Dkt. No. 77]. 5 14. On November 13, 2015, Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 6 Summary Judgment. On November 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to Defendant’s Response. 7 [Dkt. Nos. 78, 80]. 8 15. On November 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order denying Defendant’s Motion 9 for Leave to File Counterclaim against the Union. [Dkt. No. 79]. 10 16. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant was 11 held on December 10, 2015, and the matter was taken under submission by the Court. 12 17. On May 13, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and scheduled a Case Management Conference for 14 May 24, 2016 to discuss trial and settlement conference dates. [Dkt. No. 82]. 15 18. The parties are attempting to settle this matter without the need for further 16 litigation. Plaintiffs have prepared a payment plan for amounts owed by Defendant, in the form of 17 a Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, which is pending with Defendant for execution. 18 19. Plaintiffs have been informed by the Union that it intends to seek attorneys’ fees 19 and costs incurred in the Counterclaim litigation described herein. 20 20. There are no further issues that need to be addressed by this Court at the currently 21 scheduled Case Management Conference. In the interest of conserving costs as well as the Court’s 22 time and resources, parties respectfully request that the Court continue the currently scheduled Case 23 Management Conference for approximately forty-five to sixty (45-60) days, to allow for sufficient 24 time for Defendant to execute, and Plaintiffs to file, the Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation. 25 21. The parties hereto recognize that a case management conference statement is due 26 seven days in advance of the case management conference date, pursuant to Local Rule 16-9. 27 Should this Court require parties to file a complete Case Management Conference Statement, 28 parties will do so promptly. 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No.: C14-01739 HSG 1 Dated: May 17, 2016 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 2 3 By: 4 5 6 7 Dated: May 17, 2016 /S/ Michele R. Stafford, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Health Care Plan, et al. JOSEPH W. MCCARTHY, A LAW CORPORATION 8 9 By: 10 11 /S/ Joseph W. McCarthy, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, Bay Area Balancing & Cleanrooms, Inc. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Based on the foregoing, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the currently set Case 14 Management Conference is hereby continued to __________________, and all related deadlines 15 are extended accordingly. 16 17 Date: ____________________ 18 _______________________________________ THE HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No.: C14-01739 HSG 1 Dated: May . 2016 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 2 3 By: Michele R. Stafford, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local I 04 Health Care Plan, et al. 4 5 6 t 1 7 Dated: May 2016 JOSEPH W. MCCARTHY, A LAW CORPORATION 8 By:~t.).~· oset=J .MCCarthy, Esq~ 9 10 : : : f o r Defendant, Bay Area Balancing & Cleanrooms, Inc. ll 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Based on the foregoing, and GOOD S DISTRIC CAUSE APPEARING, the currently set Case E T NO 21 ER a y wo o d S. Gil FO J u d ge H A H 20 RT 19 THE HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM UNITED STATES aDISTRICT COURT li m Jr. LI 18 D DENIE R NIA UNIT ED S 15 are extended accordingly. 16 5/19/2016 17 Date: RT U O T C 14 Management Conference is hereby continued to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , and all related deadlines TA N D IS T IC T R OF C 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND !PROPOSED! ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No.: C14-0l739 HSG

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?