Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01506/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01506-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 856,

Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-1506 MJJ

ORDER

The above-captioned action was removed to the Northern District on April 13, 2005. 

Defendant UPS filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2005, and noticed a hearing date of May 25,

2005. On May 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand and noticed the hearing on that motion

for May 25, 2005. On May 11, 2005, the case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Chen to this

Court. Defendant promptly re-filed its motion to dismiss with this Court on May 13, 2005 and renoticed the hearing on that motion for June 14, 2005. Plaintiff did not re-file its motion for remand

until May 23, 2005. Plaintiff re-noticed the hearing on that motion for July 5, 2005. On May 24,

2005, Plaintiff filed a request to continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss until after

Plaintiff’s motion for remand is heard. The same day, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s

request for a continuance along with its opposition to Plaintiff’s remand motion. Defendant

requested that the Court hear both motions – Plaintiff’s motion for remand and Defendant’s motion 

Case 3:05-cv-01506-MJJ Document 35 Filed 06/08/05 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

to dismiss – on June 14, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Court issued an Order finding no reason not to

do so and scheduling oral argument on both Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for

remand for June 14, 2005 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 11. 

On May 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to defer ruling on Defendant UPS’

motion to dismiss until Plaintiff’s motion for remand is adjudicated. The Court finds that the

amended motion is identical to its earlier-filed motion to defer ruling on Defendant UPS’ motion to

dismiss, which the Court considered when it issued its May 25, 2005 scheduling order. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended motion to defer is DENIED. Both Plaintiff’s motion for remand

and Defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be heard on the same day. However, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s request to hear the motions on August 9, 2005 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June___, 2005 _______________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01506-MJJ Document 35 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2