Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04307/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04307-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TOTTEN, JOSE MORENO, in their

capacities as Trustees of the

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA;

LABORERS VACATION-HOLIDAY TRUST

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA;

LABORERS PENSION TRUST FUND FOR

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; and LABORERS

TRAINING AND RETRAINING TRUST FUND

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEX PEGUES, individually; ROGER

PITCHER, individually; ALEX PEGUES

and ROGER PITCHER, individually and

dba C&C MAINTENANCE SERVICE and C&C

MAINTENANCE SERVICE, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-4307-SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)

TO VACATE ORDER

REGARDING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

TO VACATE ORDER

REGARDING ATTORNEYS'

FEES AND COSTS

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Alex Pegues'

Motion to Vacate Order Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Under

Rule 60(b) and Motion to Vacate Order Regarding Attorneys' Fees

and Cost[s] Under Rule 60(b). See Docket Nos. 64, 65. Plaintiffs

filed an Opposition. See Docket No. 67. For the following

reasons, Defendant's Motions are DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a petition to confirm

an arbitration award. Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs subsequently

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 71 Filed 03/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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-

filed a First Amended Petition and a Second Amended Petition,

after which Defendants filed an Answer. See Docket Nos. 4, 9, 11. 

On July 21, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Docket No. 31. On three separate occasions the Court granted

Defendant's extensions of time to file an Opposition to the Motion

for Summary Judgment. Docket Nos. 37, 39, 34. The third

extension, granted on November 3, 2006, was for 45 days and in it

the Court noted that no further extensions would be granted. 

Defendant did not respond. The Court took the matter under

submission and granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and

entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Docket Nos. 48, 49.

III. DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b) provides that "a court may relieve a party . . .

from a final judgment . . . for . . . (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect . . . or (6) any other reason." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Defendant argues that he should be granted

relief from summary judgment and from attorneys' fees and costs

because of excusable neglect. Specifically, Defendant argues that

because he was incarcerated, he is entitled to relief.

Defendant's period of incarceration, assuming, arguendo, that

the documents Defendant attached to his motions are authentic,

lasted from January 12, 2007 until August 17, 2007 and again from

December 3, 2007, until December 18, 2007. See Mot. Ex. A. Thus,

at the time Defendant was first incarcerated on January 12, the

Court had already taken the matter under submission and Defendant

was prohibited from filing any further briefing. In addition, on

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 71 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

December 5, 2006, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero granted

Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery Sanctions, thereby precluding

Defendant from presenting any further evidence that had not

already been disclosed to Plaintiffs. Docket No. 46.

In light of these facts, Defendant's incarceration, which did

not begin until January 12, 2007, could not have had any impact on

this Court's ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment or on

Plaintiffs' request for fees. Although the judgment was not

issued until March 20, 2007, at the time Defendant was first

incarcerated, the third and final extension the Court had granted

had long since passed and the Court had taken the matter under

submission. Accordingly, Defendant's incarceration in this case

does not constitute excusable neglect and Defendant's Motions are

DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Vacate

Order Regarding Motion for Summary Judgment Under Rule 60(b) and

Motion to Vacate Order Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under

Rule 60(b) are DENIED. Plaintiffs' request for fees and costs

associated with these Motions is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March , 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-04307-SC Document 71 Filed 03/11/08 Page 3 of 3