Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02397/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02397-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUSTEES OF UA LOCAL 159 

HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST 

FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 09-2397 PJH

v. ORDER

RUIZ BROTHERS PREFERRED 

PLUMBING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On May 26, 2010, defendants and cross-claimants filed an opposition to the motion

to dismiss the cross-complaint, filed by cross-defendants U.A. Local 159, U.A. Local 342,

Pipe Trades District Council No. 36, and Aram Hodess. In this opposition, defendants and

cross-claimants assert that the court should deny the motion because “[t]here are no

pleadings or briefs filed with this motion that identify the allegations made by crossdefendants,” and the only documents filed in connection with the motion were the proposed

order, a declaration by Adam J. Zapala, the exhibits to the Zapala Declaration, and a

declaration by Scott Strawbridge. 

Although the court is not certain what is intended in this context by the phrase

“identify the allegations made by cross-defendants,” the court has nevertheless reviewed

the docket entries, and finds that the assertion that there are “no . . . briefs” is incorrect. 

The documents referenced by defendants and cross-claimants are simply “attachments” to

the filing. The memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion – which

defendants and cross-claimants assert does not exist – is accessible as Docket No. 53. 

Case 4:09-cv-02397-PJH Document 55 Filed 05/28/10 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

The court unable to determine the source of this error or understand the reason for

it. In any event, in the hope of being able to resolve this issue expeditiously, the court will

permit defendants and cross-claimants one additional week to oppose the motion. If

defendants and cross-claimants fail to oppose the motion, it will be granted without further

ado. 

The opposition shall be filed no later than June 2, 2010. The reply shall be filed no

later than June 9, 2010. The June 16, 2010 hearing date is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-02397-PJH Document 55 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2