Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03282/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03282-1/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

---

Lynch, Gilardi 

& Grummer 

475 Sansome Street 

Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 

94111 

Ph (415) 397-2800 

Fax (415) 397-0937 

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 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER STATUS REPORT and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

WALLACE M. TICE, ESQ. (SBN 88177) 

LYNCH, GILARDI & GRUMMER 

475 Sansome Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 397-2800 

Facsimile: (415) 397-0937 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

EILEEN BUCKLEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA-SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Case No.: C 05-03282 SC 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER STATUS 

REPORT and [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Date: March 10, 2006 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Dept.: Courtroom 1, 17th Floor 

Honorable Samuel Conti 

CASE FILED: 8/11/05 

TRIAL DATE: N/A 

EILEEN BUCKLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MBH CONSULTING, INC. DEFERRED 

COMPENSATION TRUST; MBH 

CONSULTING, INC.; MBH SOLUTIONS, 

INC.; and PETER McCREE, 

 Defendants. 

For purposes of the once-postponed Initial Case Management Conference currently on 

calendar for March 10, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff Eileen Buckley submits the following Status 

Report and request for second postponement of the Case Management Conference. 

On August 11, 2005, Plaintiff Eileen Buckley (“Plaintiff”) filed the current Complaint 

for Declaratory, Injunctive and Monetary Relief against her former employer (MBH Consulting, 

Inc. or MBH Solutions, Inc.), the trust that managed her Supplemental Employee Retirement 

Case 3:05-cv-03282-SC Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 4
Lynch, Gilardi 

& Grummer 

475 Sansome Street 

Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 

94111 

Ph (415) 397-2800 

Fax (415) 397-0937 

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 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER STATUS REPORT and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Plan (MBH Consulting, Inc. Deferred Compensation Trust; “the Plan”), and the former 

employer’s chief executive and Plan trustee (Peter McCree) (collectively, “Defendants”). In 

essence, the Complaint states Ms. Buckley’s claims under the federal Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and under California state law for Defendants’ failure 

to pay benefits under and properly to administer the retirement Plan, for breach of employment 

contract, for misrepresentation, and for breaches of fiduciary duties. All Defendants currently 

reside in New Jersey but have had relevant contacts with San Francisco. 

Following further unsuccessful settlement discussions, Plaintiff’s counsel sent the 

Complaint and related documents to Defendants’ corporate counsel in New Jersey on September 

12, 2005, along with forms for Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of 

Summons, as well as Waiver of Service of Summons. After still more settlement efforts, 

Defendants’ corporate counsel advised that neither he nor Defendants would accept service of 

the Complaint and related documents by Waiver of Service of Summons, so Plaintiff 

accomplished personal service on all Defendants on November 7, 2005 (see, Proofs of Service 

filed November 14, 2005). 

Following personal service on Defendants of the Complaint and related documents, and 

even more earnestly since the original postponement of the initial Case Management Conference 

from December 9, 2005 to March 10, 2006, settlement efforts have continued through 

Defendants’ corporate attorney in New Jersey. So as to avoid the expenses of retaining local 

counsel and the Defendants’ stated reduction in the prospects of compromise while settlement 

progress appeared to occur, Plaintiff has not required Defendants to file any responsive pleading 

and Defendants have not yet formally appeared in this action. Since December 9, 2005, 

settlement efforts have included numerous telephone and written communications between 

counsel, as well as direct telephone discussions between plaintiff Buckley and defendant 

Case 3:05-cv-03282-SC Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 4
Lynch, Gilardi 

& Grummer 

475 Sansome Street 

Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 

94111 

Ph (415) 397-2800 

Fax (415) 397-0937 

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 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER STATUS REPORT and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

McCree. At this point, Plaintiff’s counsel believes that the parties have reached an agreement in 

principal on the settlement figure, and that remaining issues concern terms of Defendants’ 

payment and security for payments over time. However, Defendants’ counsel has been ill this 

entire week and therefore unavailable to verify the status of completing a compromise 

agreement. Plaintiff’s counsel again anticipates that settlement discussions on the outstanding 

details will either succeed or fail within the next two to three weeks, and that no further 

postponement will be necessary. 

Under these circumstances, and especially given the absence of Defendants’ retaining 

local counsel and filing responsive pleadings, Plaintiff suggests that conducting an Initial Case 

Management Conference on March 10, 2006 would be premature. Plaintiff therefore requests 

continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference until May __, 2006. 

DATED: March 2, 2006 LYNCH, GILARDI & GRUMMER 

 By 

 Wallace M. Tice, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, EILEEN BUCKLEY 

ORDER 

In consideration of Plaintiff’s Status Report and the overall status of this matter, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Initial Case Management Conference is continued from March 

10, 2006 until Friday, May __, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1. In advance of the Initial Case 

Management Conference on March 10, 2006, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management 

Statement and otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Rules 16-3 

to 16-10. The Plaintiff shall advise Defendants that the Court likely will calendar a Trial date 

//

12

Case 3:05-cv-03282-SC Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 4
Lynch, Gilardi 

& Grummer 

475 Sansome Street 

Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 

94111 

Ph (415) 397-2800 

Fax (415) 397-0937 

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 

4 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER STATUS REPORT and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

and schedule other appropriate events at the Initial Case Management Conference. 

DATED: March __, 2006 

 

 Honorable Samuel Conti 

F:\PF775\P\CaseManagementStatement.002.doc 

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:05-cv-03282-SC Document 8 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 4