Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

There were similar problems with Plaintiffs' concurrently

filed motion for writ of attachment, but Defendants have not filed

any objection or opposition to that motion.

2

Defendants state that they never received paper copies of the

filings. Plaintiffs state that they mailed paper copies. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH &

WELFARE TRUST FUND, MIKE GARCIA,

Trustee, CHARLES GILCHRIST, Trustee,

RAYMOND C. NANN, Trustee, LARRY T.

SMITH, Trustee,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE and

FORREST NOLIN,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-3078 CW

ORDER OVERRULING

DEFENDANTS'

OBJECTION TO

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

On December 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint and noticed the motion for hearing

on January 10, 2008. The e-filed versions of the notice of motion,

the memorandum of points and authorities in support of that motion,

a declaration filed in support of that motion and the proposed

order granting the motion were incomplete, with some lines of text

cut off. (Docket Nos. 217, 218, 219, 221).1 On December 12, 2007,

Defendants informed Plaintiffs that the e-filed version of the

documents were defective.2 On December 13, 2007, Plaintiffs 

e-filed and provided Defendants with complete versions of those

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 254 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

documents as well as other documents filed in relation to the

motion for writ of attachment. (Docket Nos. 227-38).

On December 21, 2007, the date their opposition to the motions

was due, Defendants instead filed an objection to Plaintiffs'

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, arguing that,

due to the missing text, they did not receive the thirty-five days

notice provided for by Civil Local Rule 7-2. The Court has

reviewed both versions of the e-filed documents and finds that

little, if any, substantive material was missing from the versions

e-filed on December 6. Further, Defendants have now had complete

versions of the documents for almost three weeks. Therefore, the

Court denies Defendants' objection to Plaintiffs' motion for leave

to file a second amended complaint. The motion will be heard along

with Plaintiffs' motion for writ of attachment as scheduled on

Thursday, January 10, 2008. Defendants may file any opposition to

the motion by 12:00 PM on Monday, January 7, 2008. If Defendants

do so, Plaintiffs may, but need not, file a reply by 5:00 PM on

Tuesday, January 8, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/2/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 254 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2