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)

Download PDF
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?