Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02531/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02531-2/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

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.A. LOCAL 342 JOINT LABOR -

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, et

al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

AIRTEKS MECHANICAL

SERVICES, INC., a California

Corporation, and JEROME

BOHLAND, 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C-04- 2531 SBA (WDB)

No. C-05-1758 SBA (WDB)

ORDER RE RELATED MOTIONS

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

and related case

______________________________/ 

Judge Armstrong has related the above-captioned cases and has referred

plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment in Case No. 04-2531 to the undersigned. 

As a result, this court is charged with issuing reports and recommendations with

respect to two motions by plaintiffs requesting judgment by default against the

same defendant(s) for failure to pay contributions. Although plaintiffs' second

action (C05-1758) is styled as a request for an audit, plaintiffs also seek an order

compelling defendant(s) to pay amounts found owing by the auditor. As a result,

there is substantial overlap between the relief requested in C05-1758 and that

requested in C04-2531.

Case 4:04-cv-02531-SBA Document 43 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 3
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

The court does not want plaintiffs to incur unnecessary fees or to duplicate

all of its prior efforts. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect the court to

comb through plaintiffs' two separate motions in an effort to determine what

requested relief overlaps and what relief is unique to each motion. Accordingly,

the court proposes a procedure for streamlining plaintiffs' motions without

requiring plaintiffs to re-file every supporting document previously submitted in

connection with the two motions. 

The court ORDERS plaintiffs to file one new memorandum of points and

authorities that captures all the matters addressed in plaintiffs pending motions for

default judgment. The court will not read the two memoranda of points and

authorities currently pending in connection with plaintiffs two motions. Plaintiffs

new memorandum must address each item of relief sought (and the legal support

for plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to it) only once – e.g., total unpaid

contributions, total liquidated damages, total interest, total attorneys fees and

costs, right to an audit.

The court will refer to the evidence (declarations and their attachments)

already on file. Plaintiffs should not re-file declarations or evidence currently in

the record. However, in their memorandum of points and authorities, plaintiffs

must direct the court quite specifically to the place in the record where support for

plaintiffs' requests can be found. Plaintiffs must cite evidence by case number,

name of declarant, paragraph number, and, if the evidence is contained in an

exhibit, exhibit number and page number within the exhibit.

The court is concerned that plaintiffs may have incurred unnecessary

attorneys' fees and costs as a result of counsel's decision to file a second, formally

separate complaint in order to secure an audit instead of seeking that remedy

simply by amending the original complaint. When they submit their consolidated

Case 4:04-cv-02531-SBA Document 43 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 3
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

fee request, plaintiffs must delete any claims for fees or costs that could have been

avoided by maintaining only one action.

By Friday, December 23, 2005, plaintiffs must file with the court and serve

on defendant(s) their consolidated memorandum of points and authorities.

By Monday, January 9, 2006, defendant(s) must file with the court and

serve on plaintiffs their response to plaintiffs' consolidated memorandum, if any.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., the court will conduct a

hearing in connection with plaintiffs' consolidated motion for default judgment.

The Court ORDERS plaintiffs to serve a copy of this Order on

defendants immediately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: 

Plaintiffs with direction to serve defendants, 

SBA, wdb, stats

Case 4:04-cv-02531-SBA Document 43 Filed 12/01/05 Page 3 of 3