Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01319-8/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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUDY G. HEMPHILL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF )

THE ESTATE OF JAMES J. )

RYSKAMP, JR., et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1319 OWW/SMS

ORDER AMENDING "ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO DISMISS" NUNC PRO TUNC

On July 6, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel sent an e-mail to

Courtroom Deputy Greg Lucas asserting that a typographical

omission was made on page 28, lines 19-21 of the Order Denying

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed on July 5, 2006. On July 7,

2006, Courtroom Deputy Lucas received an e-mail from defendants’

counsel contending that no typographical omission had been made. 

The e-mails and the record have been reviewed. Plaintiff’s

assertion that a typographical omission was made in the Order is

correct. 

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 59 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Therefore, the Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

filed on July 5, 2006 as document no. 57 is amended nunc pro tunc

at page 28, lines 19-21. The final sentence in the paragraph is

deleted. Substituted therefore is the following sentence: 

"Plaintiff did not receive a clear and continuing repudiation of

her right to benefits under the four plans."

In all other respects, the Order Denying Defendants' Motion

to Dismiss remains in effect as filed.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01319-OWW -SMS Document 59 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2