Burns et al v. Halopoff & Sons, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER Granting re 37 Joint MOTION to Continue Case Management Conference. Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2014 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/20/2014. (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014)

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, CA 94104 (415) 882-7900 4 (415) 882-9287 – Facsimile mstafford@sjlawcorp.com 5 erussell@sjlawcorp.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 Justin D. Harris, Esq. (SBN 199112) MOTSCHIEDLER, MICHAELIDES, WISHON, 8 BREWER & RYAN, LLP 1690 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200 9 Fresno, CA 93711 (559) 439-4000 10 (559) 439-5654 – Facsimile jdh@mmwbr.com 11 Attorneys for Defendants 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 RUSSELL E. BURNS, et al., Case No.: C13-3968 YGR 16 JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Plaintiffs, v. 17 HALOPOFF & SONS, a California 18 Corporation; JOHN HALOPOFF, an individual 19 Defendants. 20 21 Date: October 27, 2014 Time: 2:00 p.m. Ctrm: 1, 4th Floor 1301 Clay Street Oakland, California Judge: The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 22 23 Plaintiffs and Defendants respectfully request that the Case Management Conference, 24 scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., be continued for approximately thirty (30) 25 days. Good cause exists for the granting of the continuance as follows: 26 1. As the Court’s records will reflect, this action was filed on August 27, 2013 to 27 compel Defendants to comply with the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreement. 28 /// JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CASE NO.: C13-3968 YGR P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Halopoff & Sons Inc\Pleadings\Joint Request to Continue CMC 101714.doc 2. Plaintiffs served the Summons and Complaint on Defendants on September 4, 3. 1 Plaintiffs performed an audit of Defendants’ payroll records for the period of 2 2013. 3 4 August 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013. The audit revealed Defendants owed Plaintiffs 5 approximately $127,000.00 for unpaid contributions, plus liquidated damages, interest, and audit 6 fees. 4. 7 Defendants are also indebted to Plaintiffs for approximately $121,000 for unpaid 8 contributions for the period from September 2012 through January 2014, plus liquidated damages 9 and interest on all unpaid and late-paid contributions through January 2014. 5. 10 The parties met and conferred regarding amounts due to Plaintiffs, and Defendants 11 claimed that due to financial hardship they are unable to make any payments to Plaintiffs toward 12 their debt. Defendants failed, however, to provide any evidence supporting their claim of financial 13 hardship. 6. 14 In order to evaluate Defendants’ claim of financial hardship, the Court ordered 15 Defendants to produce various documents related to their financial status pursuant to the parties’ 16 Joint Request re Production of Documents, filed on June 20, 2014. 7. 17 Defendants produced the following documents in response to the Court’s Order: a 18 list of all shareholders of Defendant Halopoff & Sons; copies of several deeds of trust and security 19 filings affecting Defendants’ property; the names and titles of all persons who have a financial 20 interest in Defendant Halopoff & Sons; Defendants’ tax returns for 2010 and 2011 and a summary 21 of unpaid payroll taxes; bank statements for January 2013 through February 2014, interim income 22 statements and interim balance sheets for the periods ending May, 31, 2013 and June 30, 2013; 23 and several loan agreements. Defendants failed, however, to provide their tax returns for the years 24 2012 and 2013 and financial statements prior to January 2013 because Defendants contend those 25 documents were not prepared. Defendants agreed to provide financial statements for 2011 and 26 2012 should Plaintiffs request them and to the extent they were prepared. 8. 27 Plaintiffs provided the documents Defendants produced to Plaintiffs’ auditors for 28 review. JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CASE NO.: C13-3968 YGR P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Halopoff & Sons Inc\Pleadings\Joint Request to Continue CMC 101714.doc 1 9. Plaintiffs’ auditors’ review of Defendants’ records is complete. The parties have 2 continued to meet and confer regarding amounts owed to Plaintiffs and are working toward an 3 informal resolution of this matter. 4 10. If an informal resolution cannot be reached, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for 5 Summary Judgment against Defendants. 6 11. There are no issues that need to be addressed by this Court at the currently 7 scheduled Case Management Conference. In the interest of conserving costs, as well as the 8 Court’s time and resources, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the currently 9 scheduled Case Management Conference for approximately thirty (30) days to allow sufficient 10 time for the parties to reach an informal resolution of this matter. 11 Dated: October 20, 2014 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 12 By: 13 14 /S/ Erica J. Russell Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 Dated: October 20, 2014 MOTSCHIEDLER, MICHAELIDES, WISHON, BREWER & RYAN, LLP 17 18 By: /S/ Justin D. Harris Attorneys for Defendants 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Based on the foregoing, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the currently set Case Management Conference is hereby continued to _______________, and all related deadlines are December 1, 2014 23 extended accordingly. 24 25 Date: ____________________ October 20, 2014 26 _________________________________________ THE HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 27 28 JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON CASE NO.: C13-3968 YGR P:\CLIENTS\OE3CL\Halopoff & Sons Inc\Pleadings\Joint Request to Continue CMC 101714.doc

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?