Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03302/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03302-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE No. C-03-3302 PJH

ERISA LITIGATION,

ORDER

_______________________________/

On August 15, 2005, plaintiff Dale Ingle filed a motion to certify a plaintiff class in the

above-entitled action. Also on August 15, 2005, defendant and counterclaimant

Administrative Committee filed a motion to certify a “counterclaim defendant” class. 

The court received a chambers copy of plaintiff’s motion, but as of August 17, 2005,

had not received a chambers copy of counterclaimant’s motion. The court’s standing order

requires that a chambers copy of every e-filed document be delivered to the clerk’s office, no

later than noon on the day following the date of filing. 

Both motions were noticed for hearing on September 14, 2005, in violation of Civil

Local Rule 7-2. Accordingly, the hearing date is VACATED. 

The court directs counsel to Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(2), which provides that “[e]very

member of the bar of this Court and any attorney permitted to practice in this Court . . . must . .

. (2) Comply with the Local Rules of this Court.” The court expects all attorneys, including

those whose offices are located outside the area served by the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California, to familiarize themselves with the Local Rules and to follow the

Local Rules and the court’s standing orders. 

In addition, the court had not anticipated the filing of two separate motions for class

Case 4:03-cv-03302-PJH Document 123 Filed 08/17/05 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

certification. The court’s purpose in consolidating the two actions and requiring realignment of

the parties and the filing of a new consolidated complaint was to eliminate the necessity for

the parties to file multiple motions on the same issue. Accordingly, counsel for plaintiff Dale

Ingle and for counterclaimant Administrative Committee shall each file a statement, not to

exceed five pages, explaining to the court why it is necessary for the court to adjudicate two

motions for class certification.

Counsel shall renotice the motion or motions, after the court has determined whether it

will permit two motions, or only one. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2005 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03302-PJH Document 123 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2