Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00273/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00273-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON GILL and WILLIAM HATCHER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHEVRON TEXACO CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation, TEXACO,

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NEW CASE NUMBER:

1:05-cv-00272 OWW LJO

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING

ACTIONS 

Briefs re Discovery Due: 

7/22/05

Opposition Due: 8/5/05

Reply Due: 8/12/05

Hearing re Discovery: 

8/26/05 8:30 Ctrm. 6

Settlement Conference Date: 

10/13/05 9:00 Ctrm. 6

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/16/06

Cross-Motions for Summary

Judgment Due: 5/30/06

Opposition Due: 6/19/06

Reply Due: 7/3/06

Hearing on Cross-Motions

for SJ: 7/17/06 9:00 Ctrm.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 21
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

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

June 23, 2005.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Alexander & Associates, PLC by William L. Alexander, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Simon Gill and William Hatcher. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP by Dawn M. Bradberry,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants and Counter-Claimants

Chevron Texaco Corporation and Texaco, Inc.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiffs’ Summary

1. Plaintiffs Simon Gill and William Hatcher were oil

field engineers originally employed by Defendant Chevron Texaco

Corporation’s (“CT”), predecessor in interest, Texaco, Inc.,

since about 1980 and 1984, respectively. After the ChevronTexaco merger, Mr. Gill and Mr. Hatcher continued to work for the

new entity, CT, in rotational overseas assignments. During

periods of 2002 and 2003, Plaintiffs were employed by CT as

managers for its Kazakhstan operations. Because of their many

years of employment with Texaco, Plaintiffs were entitled to

benefits vested under Texaco’s “Separate Pay Plan” (“SPP”), which

is CT’s denomination for the “Summary Plan Description” (“SPD”)

and Employee Welfare Benefit Plan (“EWBF”), terms defined and

regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, set out

at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”).

2. Texaco’s SPP expressly provided enhanced benefits for

participating employees, such as Plaintiffs, in the event of a

“Change of Control” (hereinafter “COC”). Texaco’s merger with

Chevron Corp., qualified as a COC and made Plaintiff eligible for

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 21
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

all enhanced benefits provisions of the SPP. In addition, CT was

bound to continue Texaco’s benefits to Plaintiffs regarding such

matters as vacation pay, tax treatment, premium pay, etc.

3. In or about the summer of 2003, the Defendants advised

Plaintiffs that the Kazakhstan oil field project where they were

employed was being sold; that their employment would be

terminated as of September 30, 2003; and that Plaintiffs had to

make prompt decisions regarding options for benefits allowable

under the current EWBP. Plaintiffs inquired as to the options

available to them and specifically requested a payout estimate

under the COC provisions binding on the parties. As a result of

an exchange of writings between Plaintiffs and the Defendants’

agents, managers, and representatives, Plaintiffs were promised,

repeatedly that their separate benefits would exceed the sum of

$365,000 for Mr. Gill and $231,000 for Mr. Hatcher; that no

income taxes or similar deductions (such as Medicare) would be

taken from that sum inasmuch as Mr. Gill was not a United States

citizen (and was not obligated to pay taxes to other nations

which had granted him citizenship); and that all additional

benefits, such as vacation pay and premium pay would be properly

adjusted and credited to Mr. Gill. 

4. Notwithstanding double confirmation of these

representations, Mr. Gill’s received benefits, which were at

least $100,000 less than the promised sums, and the Defendants

had improperly withheld taxes and other amounts from the same. 

Mr. Gill contends that all named parties are proper parties to

this action who are directly or vicariously liable for the active

misrepresentations made to him, upon which he reasonably relied. 

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 21
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

5. Notwithstanding confirmation of these representations,

Mr. Hatcher received benefits which were less than the promised

sum. Mr. Gill and Mr. Hatcher now seek declaratory relief, and

money damages, both of which will require an accounting of all

monies due them under the Defendants’ ERISA plan. Mr. Gill’s and

Mr. Hatcher’s cases are predicated upon the denial of benefits

provisions of ERISA (1132(a)(1)(B)) and the “estoppel and

misrepresentation” federal common law recognized in the Ninth

Circuit. Mr. Gill’s and Mr. Hatcher’s claims are both procedural

and substantive in nature. It is not yet known if additional

bases or theories of recovery will be discovered as this case

progresses. 

6. Many documents and witnesses supportive of Mr. Gill’s

and Mr. Hatcher’s claims were within the actual control of the

Defendants. While it is believed that many former employees who

had first hand knowledge of matters relating to Mr. Gill’s and

Mr. Hatcher’s claims have been terminated from the Defendants’

employ, the Defendants are largely the only parties in possession

of such witnesses’ last known addresses or other contact

information.

The Company’s Summary re Simon Gill

1. Plaintiff Simon Gill was hired by Texaco, Inc., on

April 23, 1980. On or around October 9, 2001, Texaco, Inc.,

became a subsidiary within the Chevron Corporation controlled

group. Plaintiff was awarded a residential assignment as General

Manager of Operations for the Company’s North Buzachi operation

in Aktau, Kazakhstan from January 16, 2003, through October 8,

2003, when his employment terminated due to the sale of the North

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 4 of 21
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

5

Buzachi operation.

2. As an expatriate on international assignment, Plaintiff

received an International Service Premium (“ISP”) each pay period

in addition to his base pay and other financial incentives not at

issue here. He was subject to the Company’s expatriate tax

equalization policies. These policies were adopted to ensure

that the decision to accept an expatriate assignment was taxneutral. Thus, under the tax equalization policies, expatriate

employees should shoulder the same tax burden while working

abroad that they would have if they remained in their home

country. Pursuant to these policies, the Company paid taxes owed

by expatriate employees to their international host countries and

some or all of the taxes owed by expatriates to their home

countries. In turn, the Company withheld from expatriate

employees’ pay a theoretical or hypothetical home country tax

based on the taxes the employees would have been obligated to pay

had they worked in their home country. After each calendar year

of the international assignment, a “tax equalization calculation”

was performed. The tax equalization compared: (a) the expatriate

employee’s theoretical or hypothetical taxes actually withheld,

and (b) the expatriate employee’s actual home country tax

expenditures, against (c) the tax liability that the expatriate

employee would have borne had he or she remained in the home

country. As a result of the tax equalization, an expatriate

employee might owe money to the Company (if theoretical or

hypothetical taxes had been under-withheld), or the Company might

owe money to the expatriate employee (if theoretical or

hypothetical taxes were over-withheld). Plaintiff failed to

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 5 of 21
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

6

request tax equalizations during the last several years of his

employment.

3. Plaintiff also participated in the Separate Pay Plan of

Texaco, Inc. The SPP is an unfunded employee welfare benefit

plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, as amended. Because Plaintiff was terminated within two

years of the Chevron/Texaco merger, which constituted a “Change

of Control” as defined in the SPP, he received Change of Control

Benefits in the amount of $365,953.79, less applicable

withholding. Plaintiff’s Change of Control benefits consisted of

a Base Pay Benefit, a Bonus & Overtime Benefit, and a Benefit

Plan Make-Up Payment.

4. Pursuant to the SPP, Change of Control Benefits are

administered by the Change of Control Committee which has “final

discretionary authority to interpret the plan’s provisions” and

“discretionary authority to make a final and conclusive

determination” as to claims for benefits. Plaintiff submitted a

claim for additional Change of Control Benefits, asserting that

his Bonus & Overtime Benefit should have been calculated as a

multiple of his ISP. On January 9, 2004, Plaintiff’s claim was

denied, which denial was upheld by the Change of Control

Committee upon Plaintiff’s administrative appeal.

5. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks additional Change of

Control Benefits under the SPP pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(a)(1)(B). He alleges that his Bonus & Overtime Benefit

should have been calculated based upon his ISP. He also seeks

the return of all theoretical taxes withheld from his salary and

his Change of Control Benefits pursuant to the Company’s tax

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 6 of 21
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

7

equalization policies, via a claim for declaratory judgment. He

alleges that, as a citizen of Canada, the United Kingdom, and

Trinidad, he is not obligated to pay any income tax to any taxing

authority. In addition, Plaintiff seeks compensatory,

incidental, and/or consequential damages, declaratory relief,

attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiff also demands a jury trial

on both claims.

6. The Company maintains that Plaintiff is not entitled to

any additional benefits under the SPP or other relief under the

Company’s tax equalization policies. The Company seeks an award

of its attorneys’ fees. The Company further maintains that it is

not a proper defendant with respect to Plaintiff’s ERISA claim

and that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of

law. 

7. In the Counter-Claim, the Company seeks the return of

any funds owed by Plaintiff after tax equalizations are

performed.

The Company’s Summary as to William Hatcher

1. Plaintiff William Hatcher was hired by Texaco, Inc., on

May 26, 1984. On or around October 9, 2001, Texaco, Inc., became

a subsidiary within the Chevron Corporation controlled group. 

Plaintiff was employed by the Company in Bakersfield, California,

until June 16, 2002, when he was awarded a rotational assignment

as a Field Production Engineer at the Company’s North Buzachi

operation in Aktau, Kazakhstan. As an expatriate on

international assignment, Plaintiff received an International

Service Premium (“ISP”) each pay period in addition to his base

pay and other financial incentives not at issue here. Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 7 of 21
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

8

remained on expatriate assignment until October 9, 2003, when his

employment terminated due to the sale of the North Buzachi

operation.

2. Plaintiff participated in the Separation Pay Plan of

Texaco, Inc. The SPP is an unfunded employee welfare benefit

plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974, as amended. Because Plaintiff was terminated within two

years of the Chevron/Texaco merger, which constituted a “Change

of Control” as defined in the SPP, he received Change of Control

Benefits in the amount of $231,778.57, less applicable

withholding. Plaintiff’s Change of Control benefits consisted of

a Base Pay Benefit, a Bonus & Overtime Benefit, and a Benefit

Plan Make-Up Payment.

3. Pursuant to the SPP, Change of Control Benefits are

administered by the Change of Control Committee which has “final

discretionary authority to interpret the plan’s provisions” and

“discretionary authority to make a final and conclusive

determination” as to claims for benefits. Plaintiff submitted a

claim for additional Change of Control Benefits, asserting that

his Bonus & Overtime Benefit should have been calculated as a

multiple of his ISP. On January 9, 2004, Plaintiff’s claim was

denied, which denial was upheld by the Change of Control

Committee upon Plaintiff’s administrative appeal.

4. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks additional Change of

Control Benefits under the SPP pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(a)(1)(B). He alleges that his Bonus & Overtime Benefit

should have been calculated based upon his ISP. In addition,

Plaintiff seeks compensatory, incidental, and/or consequential

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 8 of 21
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

9

damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiff also demands a

jury trial.

5. The Company maintains that Plaintiff is not entitled to

any additional benefits under the SPP. The Company further

maintains that it is not a proper defendant and that Plaintiff is

not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of law. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

As to Mr. Gill

1. The Company contends that Plaintiff failed to name

proper Defendants under ERISA by failing to name the Plan or Plan

Administrator. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the

Complaint to name the Plan or Plan Administrator. 

2. Mr. Gill also contends that discovery may reveal new

facts, or changes in the law warranting amendment. If Mr. Gill’s

discovery or research reveals a need to amend any pleading, he

will promptly seek a stipulation allowing for the amendment or he

will file a motion for leave to amend if a stipulation is not

possible.

3. After obtaining the necessary information from

Plaintiff in discovery, the Company expects to have tax

equalizations conducted for those years in which Plaintiff did

not request them. The Company may seek to amend the CounterClaim to reflect the results of those tax equalizations.

As to Mr. Hatcher

1. The Company contends that Plaintiff failed to name

proper Defendants under ERISA by failing to name the Plan or Plan

Administrator. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the

Complaint to name the Plan or Plan Administrator. 

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 9 of 21
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

10

2. Mr. Hatcher also contends that discovery may reveal new

facts, or changes in the law warranting amendment. If Mr.

Hatcher’s discovery or research reveals a need to amend any

pleading, then he will promptly seek a stipulation allowing for

the amendment or he will file a motion for leave to amend if a

stipulation is not possible.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

Uncontested Facts As to Mr. Gill

1. Plaintiff was a participant in the SPP of Texaco,

Inc.

2. Texaco’s merger with Chevron constituted a “Change

of Control” as defined by the SPP.

3. Mr. Gill was entitled to, and received, some

severance benefits as a result of the COC and Mr. Gill’s

termination of employment.

4. Plaintiff submitted a claim for additional Change

of Control Benefits, dated December 9, 2003.

5. By letter dated January 9, 2004, the Claims

Committee denied Plaintiff’s claim.

6. By letter dated March 8, 2004, Plaintiff appealed

the Claims Committee’s decision to the Change of Control

Committee.

7. The Change of Control Committee denied Plaintiff’s

appeal by letter dated May 6, 2004. 

8. Plaintiff did not obtain a tax equalization for

the years 2001, 2002, or 2003. 

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 10 of 21
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

11

Uncontested Facts As to Mr. Hatcher

1. Plaintiff was a participant in the SPP of Texaco,

Inc.

2. Texaco’s merger with Chevron constituted a “Change

of Control” (“COC”) as defined by the SPP.

3. Mr. Hatcher received severance benefits as a

result of the COC and Mr. Hatcher’s termination of employment.

4. Plaintiff submitted a claim for additional Change

of Control Benefits, dated December 9, 2003.

5. By letter dated January 9, 2004, the Claims

Committee denied Plaintiff’s claim.

6. By letter dated March 8, 2004, Plaintiff appealed

the Claims Committee’s decision to the Change of Control

Committee.

7. The Change of Control Committee denied Plaintiff’s

appeal by letter dated May 5, 2004.

Contested Facts of Mr. Gill

1. Whether special premium rates which were part of

Mr. Gill’s compensation scheme with the Defendants were part of a

special fund or otherwise came within the scope of ERISA.

2. Whether the Defendants properly continued their

historic treatment of Mr. Gill’s compensation package through the

date of his termination and in accordance with ERISA

requirements.

3. Whether the Defendants complied with their own

procedural requirements in connection with their payments to Mr.

Gill at the time of and after his separation.

4. Whether the Defendants complied with the promises

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 11 of 21
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

12

made by their agents and representatives in connection with Mr.

Gill’s separation.

5. Whether facts developed during discovery can

support a fraud claim recognizable under ERISA.

6. Whether the Defendants were guilty of procedural

defects in the handling of Mr. Gill’s SPP payments such that

applicable ERISA requirements have not been met.

7. Whether the Defendants’ historical treatment of

Mr. Gill, with respect to tax withholdings and related matters,

was consistently followed at all times.

8. Whether the Defendants had or have any right to

withhold taxes, or similar deductions, from Mr. Gill in view of

(a) the absence of any duty on his part to pay any taxes,

Medicare deductions, or other withholdings to the U.S. and (b)

his multinational citizenship, lack of taxation requirements, and

his historic tax treatment from all such nations.

9. Whether Plaintiff reasonably expected, and was

entitled to, assistance in all tax matters from the defendants

for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

Contested Facts of the Company

1. The Company maintains that there are no contested

facts material to Plaintiff’s claim for additional Change of

Control benefits under ERISA. The Company contends that the

“contested” facts identified by Plaintiff above are either

immaterial or are actually disputed legal, rather than factual,

issues. 

Contested Facts of Mr. Hatcher

1. Whether special premium rates which were part of

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 12 of 21
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

13

Mr. Hatcher’s compensation scheme with the Defendants were part

of a special fund or otherwise came within the scope of ERISA.

2. Whether the Defendants properly continued their

historic treatment of Mr. Hatcher’s compensation package through

the date of his termination and in accordance with ERISA

requirements.

3. Whether the Defendants complied with their own

procedural requirements in connection with their payments to Mr.

Hatcher at the time of and after his separation.

4. Whether the Defendants complied with the promises

made by their agents and representatives in connection with Mr.

Hatcher’s separation.

5. Whether facts developed during discovery can

support a fraud claim recognizable under ERISA.

Contested Facts of the Company

1. The Company maintains that there are no contested

facts material to Plaintiff’s claim for additional Change of

Control benefits under ERISA. The Company contends that the

“contested” facts identified by Plaintiff above are either

immaterial or are actually disputed legal, rather than factual,

issues.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 13 of 21
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

14

B. Contested. 

As to Mr. Gill

1. Whether the Company is a proper Defendant under

ERISA.

2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial

under ERISA.

3. Whether Plaintiff may state a claim for estoppel

and misrepresentation herein.

4. Whether there have been any procedural violations

of ERISA.

5. Whether this Court should award Mr. Gill money

damages or remand the Defendants’ decisions for correction so as

to comply with all relevant ERISA requirements.

6. Whether the Court’s review of the Change of

Control Committee’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for

additional benefits under the SPP should be limited to the

administrative record that was before the Change of Control

Committee when it administered the claim.

7. Whether discovery is appropriate on Plaintiff’s

ERISA claim.

8. The standard of review applicable to the Change of

Control Committee’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for

benefits.

9. The standard of review to be applied to

Plaintiff’s claim of estoppel and misrepresentation.

10. Whether the Change of Control Committee abused its

discretion in denying Plaintiff’s claim for additional benefits

under the SPP.

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 14 of 21
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

15

11. Whether Plaintiff’s demand for attorneys’ fees is

permissible.

12. Whether the presumption favoring Plaintiff

participants and beneficiary attorney fee claims, including

interim attorneys fees, should be applied here. 

13. Whether the Company’s tax equalization policies

apply to Plaintiff’s payout under the SPP.

14. Whether it was improper for the Company to

withhold hypothetical or theoretical home country tax from

Plaintiff’s pay pursuant to its expatriate tax equalization

policies.

15. Whether the Defendants improperly withheld any

other amounts, such as Medicare, from Plaintiff in connection

with his ERISA benefits.

As to William Hatcher

1. Whether the Change of Control Committee’s decision

to deny Plaintiff’s claim for additional benefits under the SPP

should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2. Whether the Company is a proper Defendant under

ERISA.

3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial

under ERISA.

4. Whether the Court’s review of the Change of Control

Committee’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for additional

benefits under the SPP should be limited to the administrative

record that was before the Change of Control Committee when it

administered the claim.

5. Whether discovery is appropriate on Plaintiff’s

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 15 of 21
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

16

ERISA claim.

6. Whether the Change of Control Committee abused its

discretion in denying Plaintiff’s claim for additional benefits

under the SPP.

7. Whether Plaintiff’s demand for attorneys’ fees

should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous.

8. Whether Plaintiff may state a claim for estoppel

and misrepresentation.

9. Whether there were any procedural violations of

ERISA.

10. Whether this Court should award Mr. Hatcher money

damages or remand the defendants’ decisions for correction so as

to comply with all relevant ERISA requirements.

11. The standard of review for the Change of Control

Committee’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for proper ERISA

benefits.

12. The standard of review to be applied to

Plaintiff’s claim of estoppel and misrepresentation.

13. Whether Plaintiff’s demand for attorneys’ fees is

permissible.

14. Whether the presumption favoring Plaintiff

participants and beneficiary attorney fee claims, including

interim attorneys’ fees, should be applied here. 

VII. Consolidation.

1. The parties agree that subject to the resolution of any

unrelated issues, these cases shall be consolidated for all

purposes, including trial, under the low case number: 1:05-cv00272 OWW LJO. All further filings in these consolidated cases

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 16 of 21
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

17

shall be made under that number and the second case number, 1:05-

cv-00273 OWW SMS, shall be administratively closed. 

VIII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

IX. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties disagree whether the case should be

resolved on the administrative record. 

2. The parties do not agree as to extent of discovery, if

any, that is permitted in respect to the ERISA claim. The

parties agree that discovery is permitted as to the tax

equalization claim. Accordingly, the following schedule shall be

adopted to resolve the issue of entitlement to discovery on the

ERISA claim. 

3. The Defendants shall file any legal authorities in

opposition to the right to conduct ERISA discovery in this case

on or before July 22, 2005. The response of Plaintiffs shall be

filed on or before August 5, 2005. Defendants’ reply shall be

due on or before August 12, 2005. The matter shall be heard

before Magistrate Judge O’Neill in Courtroom 6 on August 26,

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 17 of 21
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

18

2005, at 8:30 a.m. 

4. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before May 16, 2006.

5. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before March 13, 2006. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before April

17, 2006. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

6. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

XI. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. The following schedule shall be adopted for crossmotions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall

file their cross-motions for summary judgment on or before May

30, 2006. Opposition pleadings shall be filed on or before June

19, 2006. Any responses shall be filed by July 3, 2006. The

cross-motions for summary judgment shall be heard on July 17,

2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before Judge Wanger. 

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 18 of 21
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

19

2. Following disposition of the cross-motions for summary

judgment, a further scheduling conference shall be held to

determine the necessity for a trial date. 

XII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for October 13,

2005, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 before the Honorable Lawrence

J. O’Neill, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 19 of 21
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

20

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIII. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XIV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XV. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 20 of 21
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

21

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVI. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: June 23, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

gill sch con

Case 1:05-cv-00273-OWW -SMS Document 15 Filed 06/27/05 Page 21 of 21