Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02438-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. KERNS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

ORDER

v.

MATHEW J. WENNER, HUGH

GAYLORD, EDWARD TREACY,

THOMAS SARNECKI, GEORGE

TEDESCHI, CHARLES KAMEN, and

JOHN D. BACHLER,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to rule on all matters (ECF

No. 73), motion to reconsider the exclusion of ERISA rules and regulations (ECF No.

80), motion to reduce complaint (ECF No. 83), motion to forfeit his trial by jury (ECF

No. 87), motion for entry of default judgment (ECF No. 89), motion for summary

judgment (ECF No. 108), motion to reconsider that entry of default judgment be entered

against Defendant Wenner (ECF No. 122), motion for forfeiture of case (ECF No. 124),

two motions to strike documents from the record (ECF No. 126, 130 ), a supplemental

motion to the pending motion for default judgment (ECF No. 132), and two motions to

increase the damages alleged in the complaint (ECF Nos. 136, 140). 

I. Background

On September 28, 2016, Plaintiff Larry D. Kerns initiated this action by filing the

complaint against Defendants Mathew J. Wenner, Hugh Gaylord, Edward Treacy,

- 1 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 10
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

Thomas Sarnecki, George Tedeschi, Charles Kamen and John D. Bachler.1 (ECF No.

1). Plaintiff brings causes of action for mail fraud and violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and seeks $3,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff

allegations relate to Plaintiff’s benefits under the GCIU-Employment Retirement Fund. 

Id. 

II. Motion to Rule on All Matters (ECF No. 73) and Motion to Forfeit Trial by

Jury (ECF No. 87)

On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “PLAINTIFF; KERNS;

HEREBY; OFFERS TO FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; (IF HIS

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS NOT GRANTED); AND SUBMITS, THIS

MOTION: FOR HONORABLE JUDGE HAYS; TO RULE ON; ALL MATTERS;

REGARDING THIS CASE. (IF A FEW CONDITIONS; CAN BE APPROVED; BY

ALL PARTIES) (Plaintiff; requests a 1 hour hearing; for Judge Hays’ and defendant’s

questions).” (ECF No. 73). Plaintiff states that he will forfeit his right to a jury trial if

the Court “relies solely on plaintiff’s many filed documents” and any evidence

submitted by Defendant to make a ruling, the parties each pay their own legal expenses,

and Defendant waives all discovery. (ECF No. 73). On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed

a second motion which also asserts that Plaintiff will forfeit his right to a jury trial if the

following conditions are accepted by Defendant and the Court: (1) the parties waive

discovery and the Court rules on whether punitive awards are warranted; (2) each party

pays their own legal expenses; and (3) Defendant does not request and is not awarded

money from Plaintiff. Id. (ECF No. 87 at 4-5). Plaintiff also requests, “that Honorable

Judge William Q. Hayes; personally; is judge in this matter.” (ECF No. 102). 

 Plaintiff has not established any legal or factual basis that entitles him to the

ruling he seeks. Plaintiff’s motions are denied. (ECF Nos. 73, 87). 

III. Motion to Reconsider the Exclusion of ERISA Rules and Regulations (ECF

1

 Defendant Matthew Wenner is the only defendant remaining in this action. 

Defendants Gaylord, Treacy, Sarnecki, Tedeschi, Kamen, and Bachler were dismissed

from this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 39). 

- 2 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 10
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

No. 80). 

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

prior Order denying his motion to exclude rules and regulations under the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). (ECF No. 80). Plaintiff contends that he

“previously, made an error; by considering the ‘delay in receiving benefits’; statement

by defence; so ridiculous that he did not argue the matter and would like to argue that

matter; now.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends ERISA is inapplicable to this matter because

the Complaint alleges “wanton and willful misconduct; that occurred; DURING a 13

year period of time” rather than a thirteen year delay in receiving benefits. Id. at 4.

In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to offer any new facts or law

relevant to the Court’s previous ruling. (ECF No. 106). Further, Defendant contends

that there is no authority to support Plaintiff’s position that his claims are exempted

from ERISA. Id. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a

court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for

a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or

vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1-6). The burden of proof is on the party bringing the Rule 60(b)

motion. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). Civil

Local Rule 7.1(i) provides that when a party moves the Court for reconsideration of a

prior order, the party must identify “what new or different facts and circumstances are

claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” 

CivLR 7.1(i). 

The Court’s prior order stated, “The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations

relating to damages for delay in receiving benefits related to the administration of a plan

- 3 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 10
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

covered by ERISA. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude ERISA rules and regulations is

denied.” (ECF No. 76 at 2-3). In the current motion, Plaintiff fails to identify any new

or different facts and circumstances, or any other grounds demonstrating that relief from

the Court’s prior order is appropriate. Plaintiff’s contention that he did not adequately

argue a point in a previous motion does not support reconsideration. Further, the Court

properly determined that any exclusion of ERISA rules and regulations is inappropriate

at this stage in the proceedings. Although Plaintiff brings claims for mail fraud and

violation of the ADA, the allegations of the Complaint relate to the administration of

a plan covered by ERISA. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 44 (1987)

(“ERISA comprehensively regulates, among other things, employee welfare benefit

plans that, “through the purchase of insurance or otherwise,” provide medical, surgical,

or hospital care, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, or death.”)

(citing 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)). The motion for reconsideration is denied. (ECF No. 80). 

IV. Motion to Reduce Complaint Damages (ECF No. 83)

On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to reduce the damages alleged in the

Complaint. (ECF No. 83). Plaintiff asserts, “Plaintiff believes complaint demand

amount; has to change; before a Judgement [sic] of Default; can be Granted; under

Federal Law; at this time. Therefore, plaintiff; is willing and happy to lower demand

Amount to 2.9 million dollars; in his efforts; for a Judgement of Default; by Judge

Hays.” Id.

The Court has previously denied multiple requests for entry of default judgment

by the Plaintiff because Defendant Wenner filed an answer and proof of service stating

that Plaintiff was served with the answer by mail on November 21, 2016. (ECF No.

37). Plaintiff provides no legal basis for the assertion that default judgment would be

appropriate if the damages alleged in the Complaint were reduced. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. Further, after a defendant has filed an answer, a plaintiff may amend a complaint

only with “leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ.

- 4 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 10
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

P. 15(a). Plaintiff has not sought leave to file an amended complaint reflecting the new

damages amount with the Court. To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend in the

instant motion, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule

15.1(b). CivLR 15.1(b) (“Any motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by:

(1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed

amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other

similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading differs

from the operative pleading.”). 

V. Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 89), Motion to Reconsider that Entry

of Judgment by Default be Entered Against Defendant Wenner (ECF No. 122),

Supplemental Motion to Motion for Entry of Judgment (ECF No. 132) 

Plaintiff has filed a motion (ECF No. 89) and supplemental motion (ECF No.

132) requesting that entry of default judgment be entered against Defendant Wenner

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (ECF No. 89). Plaintiff contends

that he was not timely served with an answer (ECF No. 89) and that proof of service

“was not even mentioned” in the Answer filed by Defendant Wenner. (ECF No. 132). 

Plaintiff has additionally filed a supplemental document requesting that the Clerk of

Court provide proof of service of the documents filed as docket numbers 78 and 76 in

this case and that these documents are removed from the docket. (ECF No. 118 at 7). 

Plaintiff contends that proof of service associated with docket number 76 is deficient

because the wrong case number is listed on the service list page. Id. 

In opposition, Defendant contends that the Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s

motions for default judgment and the latest motion for default judgment is not

supported by any new facts or law. (ECF No. 119). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a

court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for

a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)

- 5 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 10
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

the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any

other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1-6). The burden of proof is on the party bringing the Rule 60(b)

motion. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383. Further Local Rule 7.1(i) provides that when a

party moves the Court for reconsideration of a prior order, the party must identify “what

new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or

were not shown, upon such prior application.” CivLR 7.1(i). 

 Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the Clerk of the

Court enter default “when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or

otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that the court may grant a default judgment after default has been

entered by the Clerk of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(a), a defendant must serve an answer within 21 days after being

served with the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). 

This Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for entry of default

judgment against Defendant Wenner. (ECF No. 37). The Court’s prior Order stated, 

Plaintiff’s proof of service of the summons states that Defendant Wenner

was served by substituted service on October 31, 2016. (ECF No. 12 at 1). Defendant Wenner filed an answer and proof of service stating that Plaintiff was served with the answer by mail on November 21, 2016. 

(ECF No. 11). The docket reflects that the Clerk of Court has not entered

default. Plaintiff’s motions for entry of default judgment are denied. 

Id. Plaintiff’s recent motions fails to establish any grounds supporting reconsideration

of the Court’s prior order denying the motion for default judgment. The record reflects

that Defendant Wenner filed an answer and proof of service stating that Plaintiff was

served with the Answer by mail on November 21, 2016. (ECF No. 11). 

Plaintiff also requests the Court remove the documents filed as docket number

76 and docket number 78 for improper service. (ECF No. 118). Docket number 76 is

an Order of the Court and the Court denies the request to remove this document from

- 6 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 10
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

the record. Docket number 78 is a “Notice of Order” filed by Defendant Wenner. 

Attached to this notice, Defendant filed a Proof of Service stating that Plaintiff was

served with a true copy of the Notice on August 8, 2017. (ECF No. 78-2). The Court

notes that the case number listed on the service list included with the proof of service

for this document, the Answer, and other filings by Defendant is incorrect. However,

the Court concludes that the proof of service documents indicates that Plaintiff was

properly served with copies of the respective filings in this case. Plaintiff’s request to

strike the documents filed as docket numbers 76 and 78 is denied.2

 (ECF No. 118). 

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, motion to reconsider that default

judgment be entered, and supplemental motion are denied. (ECF Nos. 89, 122, 132). 

VI. Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108)

On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and

requested a hearing date. (ECF No. 108). Plaintiff’s motion states in its entirety, 

There is not question; or argument; that Mail Fraud and ADA violations;

OCCURRED; Proved by the fact that; even though defendant; still denies; plaintiff’s; allegations; His attorney has still; offered no [ZERO] evidence;

to prove his innocence. Plaintiff, Prays [the Court] will browse the evidence plaintiff; provided the GCIU Employer Retirement fund;

Trustees; for the August 2016; appeal hearing; Letters of Appeal 1,2, and 3; plus the court; request; for green sheets; that was not filed in court; all

th previous; were evidence at the appeal hearing. Please also consider considering Exhibits; A-1-A-2 (part 1)(part 2) and (part 3) and G-1 - G-3 - G-4 - AND G-5. Please ENTER; this document on docket sheet;

01/04/2018 or earliest; applicable date.

Id. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a supplemental document to this motion

contending that he “cannot find any evidence of any kind; within pages 2 thru 10; that

he is not entitled to” summary judgment. (ECF No. 114 at 3). Plaintiff contends that

all of the documents he has filed at the clerk’s office are admissible evidence. (ECF

2

 Plaintiff filed additional motions (ECF Nos. 126, 130) requesting that the Court remove from the record Defendant Wenner’s opposition, evidentiary objections, and declaration filed in response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 126); the answer filed by Defendant Wenner (ECF No. 11); the Notice of Order filed by Defendant Wenner (ECF No. 78); and the response in opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment by Defendant Wenner (ECF No. 119) due to the same issues with the case number on the service list page. The motions are denied on the same grounds. (ECF Nos. 126, 130). 

- 7 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 10
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

No. 128). 

In opposition, Defendant contends that the motion fails to establish the absence

of any genuine dispute of material fact, fails to address ERISA, fails to identify the

ground upon which summary judgment is sought, and was not accompanied by a

separate statement of undisputed fact or a memorandum of points and authorities. 

(ECF No. 120). Defendant objects to the admissibility of the evidence cited by Plaintiff

on the following grounds: lack of foundation; lack of authentication; lack of personal

knowledge; hearsay; irrelevance; and ambiguous, confusing and misleading. (ECF No.

120-1).

“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense–or

the part of each claim or defense–on which summary judgment is sought. The court

shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense

and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The materiality of a fact

is determined by the substantive law governing the claim or defense. See Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

322-24 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary

judgment is proper. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 153 (1970). The

burden then shifts to the opposing party to provide admissible evidence beyond the

pleadings to show that summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S.

at 256; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 324. The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed,

and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in her favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at

255. To avoid summary judgment, the opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory

allegations of fact or law. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Instead, the nonmovant must designate which specific facts show that there is a genuine

issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

- 8 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 10
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

Plaintiff brings a cause of action for mail fraud and a violation of the ADA and,

as the moving party, also bears the burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is

proper as to those claims. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not satisfied his

burden to demonstrate that summary judgment is appropriate as to the mail fraud and

ADA claims. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. (ECF No. 108).

VII. Motion for Forfeiture of Case (ECF No. 124)

On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document stating “PLAINTIFF, ENTERS;

A MOTION FOR FORFEITURE; OF CASE 16-CV-2438; BY DEFENDANT

RETROACTIVE TO SEPTEMBER 28, 2016; DUE TO NO ATTORNEY [ADDED]

AND DEFENDANT; NOT INDICATING; HE WAS REPRESENTING; HIMSELF. 

CivLR 5.2. - Missing Proof of Service CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7.1(I) [NEW

EVIDENCE].” (ECF No. 124). Plaintiff contends that proof of service is “not even

mentioned” in Defendant’s answer filed on November 21, 2016. Id. 

Plaintiff does not clearly identify the relief he is requesting from the Court. 

Further, as previously determined by the Court, Defendant Wenner attached proof of

service to his Answer stating that service was completed by mail on November 21,

2016. (ECF No. 11 at 10). The motion is denied. (ECF No. 124).

VIII. Motion to Increase Demand Amount (ECF Nos. 136, 140) 

Plaintiff filed two motions to increase the demand amount to five million dollars

“due to questions regarding; whom pays an unknown amount of; defense legal fees.” 

(ECF Nos. 136, 140). After a defendant has filed an answer, a plaintiff may amend a

complaint only with “leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff has not sought leave to file an amended complaint

reflecting the new damages amount with the Court. To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave

to amend in the instant motion, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Civil

Local Rule 15.1(b). CivLR 15.1(b). The motions are denied. (ECF Nos. 136, 140). 

IX. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions filed by Plaintiff are DENIED. 

- 9 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 10
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

(ECF Nos. 73, 80, 83, 87, 89, 108, 122, 124, 126, 130, 132, 136, 140). 

DATED: November 20, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 10 - 16cv2438-WQH-WVG

Case 3:16-cv-02438-WQH-WVG Document 145 Filed 11/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10