Pension Trust Fund For Operating Engineers et al v. D P Crushing, Inc. et al

Filing 11

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 8 Stipulation for Extension of Time.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2012)

1 RICHARD C. JOHNSON (SBN 40881)
SHAAMINI A. BABU (SBN 230704)
2 JULIE A. OSTIL (SBN 215202)
SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION
3 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110
San Francisco, CA 94104
4 [phone]
[phone] – Facsimile
5 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
6 [e-mail]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING
ENGINEERS; F.G. CROSTHWAITE and
11 RUSSELL E. BURNS, as Trustees,
Plaintiffs,

12
13 vs.

14 D P CRUSHING, INC., aka DP CRUSHING,
INC., a California Corporation; and DAVID
15 ARTHUR PILE, Individually, and dba D P
CONSTRUCTION, a Sole Proprietorship, and
16 DOES 1-20,
17

Case No.: C 12-03306 DMR
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT;
REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Complaint Filed:
6/27/12
Judge: Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu

Defendants.

18
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 6(b) and CIV. L.R. 6.1, Plaintiffs Pension Plan for
19
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, F.G. Crosthwaite, and Russell E. Burns
20
(“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants DP Crushing, Inc, aka DP Crushing, Inc., a California corporation;
21
and David Arthur Pile, individually, and dba D P Construction, a sole proprietorship
22
(“Defendants”) hereby stipulate as follows:
23
1.

The instant action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

24
1974, as amended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
25
money damages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
26
2.

A Complaint was filed in this matter on June 27, 2012, to recover withdrawal

27
28

liability allegedly owed by Defendants, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]
P:\CLIENTS\OE3WL\CASES\DP Crushing\Pleading\CMC\Stip re Response Dates 082912.doc

C 12-03306 DMR

1 of 1974 (ERISA) as amended by the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980
2 (MPPAA).
3.

3

Service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants was effectuated on June 29,

4 2012. Proofs of Services of Summons were filed with the Court on July 16, 2012. (Docket No. 7)
4.

5

In the interest of minimizing costs as well as the Court’s time and resources, the

6 defendants have provided documentation that may lead to resolution of the action, or portions
7 thereof, without the need for litigation, and plaintiffs need further time to analyze the documents.
8 Accordingly, the parties hereby request and stipulate that the Defendants shall have until October
9 30, 2012, to respond to the Complaint.
5.

10

The requested extension will modify the Court’s Order docketed on June 27, 2012.

11 (Docket No. 3) The parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference currently
12 scheduled for September 26, 2012, and all of its associated deadlines, be continued for 60 days to
13 allow sufficient time for plaintiffs to review defendants’ documentation and request any further
14 information and/or documentation necessary. By allowing sufficient time to complete the review,
15 the parties intend to attempt to resolve the litigation in whole or in part. If such resolution is not
16 possible, defendants will then to respond to the Complaint, and the parties will hold the required
17 “meet and confer” and ADR telephone conference, and prepare a CMC Statement in advance of
18 the Case Management Conference.
6.

19

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate to the extension of deadlines

20 and respectfully request the Court to extend the deadlines as follows:
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]
P:\CLIENTS\OE3WL\CASES\DP Crushing\Pleading\CMC\Stip re Response Dates 082912.doc

C 12-03306 DMR

1 ///
2

Prior Date

New Date

Event

3

9/5/12

11/14/12

Last day to:
 meet and confer re initial disclosures,
early settlement, ADR process
selection, and discovery plan
 file ADR Certification signed by parties
and counsel
 file either Stipulation to ADR Process
or Notice of Need for ADR Phone
Conference

4

(Dkt # 3)

5
6
7
8
9

9/19/12

10

13

Civil L.R. 16-8 (b)
ADR L.R. 3-5(b)
Civil L.R. 16-8 (c)
ADR L.R. 3-5(b)-(c)

Last day to file Rule 26(f) Report, complete F.R.Civ.P. 26(a) (1)
initial disclosures or state objection in Rule Civil L.R . 16-9
26(f) Report and file Case Management
Statement per Standing Order re Contents of
Joint Case Management Statement

12/5/12
at 1:30 pm

Initial Case Management Conference

11
9/26/12
at 1:30 pm

F.R.Civ.P. 26(f)
ADR L.R. 3.5
L.R.3-5

11/28/12

(Dkt #3)

12

Governing Rule

Civil L.R . 16-10

14
15
16

(Dkt #3)
7.

The parties believe that an extension of the deadlines promotes judicial economy

17 and will help effectuate a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action. See FED. R.
18 CIV. P. 1.
19 Dated: August 31, 2012

SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION

20
By:

21
22
23

/s/ Julie A. Ostil
Julie A. Ostil
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 10, 2012

MAGARIAN LAW LLP

24
25
26
27

By:

/s/ Krista L. DiMercurio
Krista L. DiMercurio, Attorney at Law
Defendants DP Crushing, Inc, aka DP Crushing, Inc.,
a California corporation; and David Arthur Pile,

28

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]
P:\CLIENTS\OE3WL\CASES\DP Crushing\Pleading\CMC\Stip re Response Dates 082912.doc

C 12-03306 DMR

Individually, and dba D P Construction, a sole
proprietorship

1
2

ORDER

3

deadlines are extended as specified above.

9
10

Sept. 14, 2012
Dated: ___________________

UNIT
ED

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

7

Management Conference is hereby continued to December 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm. All related

_______________________________________
DERED
SO OR
DONNA M. RYU
IT IS
United States Magistrate Judge

. Ryu

onna M
Judge D

NO

11

RT

12

ER

14

A

H

13

R NIA

6

Defendant has until October 30, 2012 to file a response to the Complaint. The currently set Case

FO

5

Based on the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

LI

4

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

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

-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER]
P:\CLIENTS\OE3WL\CASES\DP Crushing\Pleading\CMC\Stip re Response Dates 082912.doc

C 12-03306 DMR