Giannini v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California

Filing 16

ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AND (2) CONTINUING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. The court orders Defendant to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall do so in writing no later than January 30, 2015. In light of this jurisdictional problem, the court continues the hearing on Defendant's pending motion to dismiss from January 29, 2015 to February 12, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Cour troom C, 15th Floor, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Dismiss and Notice of Motion. Show Cause Response due by 1/30/2015. Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 1/23/2015. (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
GARY GIANNINI,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14

No. C 14-05227 LB
Plaintiff,

v.
CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
AND (2) CONTINUING THE
HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

17

Plaintiff Gary Giannini, who is proceeding pro se, sued Defendant Carpenters Pension Trust

18

Fund for Northern California in state court. He alleges that Defendant breached a contract entitling

19

him to pension benefits. Defendant removed the action to federal court, asserting that Plaintiff’s

20

claim is preempted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). In the notice

21

of removal, Defendant says that Plaintiff seeks “benefits from a pension plan governed by” ERISA

22

and that his claim necessarily involves questions arising under that statute. Defendant, however,

23

offers no argument or evidence to support this assertion. Defendant neither filed a declaration

24

attaching the pension plan nor explained why the pension plan is one that is covered by ERISA. As

25

it stands now, the record does not establish that the pension plan at issue in this action is one that is

26

covered by ERISA.

27
28

The court thus orders Defendant to show cause why this action should not be remanded for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall do so in writing no later than January 30, 2015. In

C 14-05227 LB
ORDER

1

light of this jurisdictional problem, the court continues the hearing on Defendant’s pending motion

2

to dismiss from January 29, 2015 to February 12, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor,

3

United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2015
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 14-05227 LB
ORDER

2