Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. et al
Filing
15
ORDER granting 14 Motion to Continue CMC. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/23/2014. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2014)
Case5:14-cv-00706-BLF Document14 Filed07/22/14 Page1 of 3
1
Ronald L. Richman, SBN 139189
Susan J. Olson, SBN 152467
2 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
601 California Street, Suite 1800
3 San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: 415.352.2700
4 Facsimile: 415.352.2701
E-Mail: ron.richman@bullivant.com
5
susan.olson@bullivant.corn
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
12 TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
13 THE LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
14 CALIFORNIA; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND
15 FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
16 LABORERS TRAINING AND RETRAINING
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
17 CALIFORNIA,
18
19
Case No.: 5:14-cv-00706-BLF
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT; PROPOSED ORDER
THEREON
Date:
July 31, 2014
Time:
1:30 PM
Ctroom: 3, 5 th Floor
San Jose Courthouse
Before: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
Plaintiffs,
V S.
20 FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation; and DAVID MICHAEL
21 PASEK, an individual,
22
Defendants.
23
24
Plaintiffs file this abbreviated case management conference.
25
On February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Laborers Trust Funds filed their Complaint for Breach
26
of Collective Bargaining Agreement And for a Mandatory Injunction ("Complaint"). The
27
Complaint seeks an Order requiring defendant Flagship Facility Services, Inc. to submit to an
28
—1—
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; PROPOSED ORDER THEREON
Case5:14-cv-00706-BLF Document14 Filed07/22/14 Page2 of 3
audit of its books and records. On February 14, 2014, this matter was assigned to the Hon.
Edward M. Chen. On April 17, 2014, this matter was re-assigned to this Court.
At the request of Defendants, Defendants were not served with the Complaint because
they wanted an opportunity to attempt to work out the dispute regarding the scope of the audit.
Counsel for defendants appeared in order to participate in the original Stipulation to continue
the prior case management conference to allow the parties to attempt to work out the dispute
regarding the scope of the audit. The parties successfully worked out the dispute regarding the
scope of the audit. The audit was recently completed.
The result of the audit has been communicated to Defendants and the parties are
attempting to resolve any issues regarding the audit results. If the parties are unable to resolve
the dispute and reach a settlement within the next thirty (30) days, Plaintiffs Laborers Trust
Funds will file and serve Defendants with a First Amended Complaint.
Based on the above, Plaintiffs Laborers Trust Funds respectfully request that this Court
continue the case management conference for a period of forty five (45) days.
DATED: July 22, 2014
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
By
eM41
Ronald L. Richman
Susan J. Olson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
—2—
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; PROPOSED ORDER THEREON
Case5:14-cv-00706-BLF Document14 Filed07/22/14 Page3 of 3
1
ORDER
2
3
Pursuant to request by Plaintiffs Laborers Trust Funds to continue the case management
conference and good cause appearing:
4
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case management conference is hereby re-set to
October 2
, 2014, 1:30 p.m., Courtroom 3, 5 th Floor, San Jose Division. A case
6
management statement shall be filed seven days prior to the case management conference.
7
DATED: July 24 , 2014
8
9
HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
15160677.1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
—3—
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; PROPOSED ORDER THEREON
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?