Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04949/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04949-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

ELAINE CHAO, Secretary of Labor, No. C-04-4949 PJH

United States Department of Labor,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING

LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA, et al., MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER, AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

Defendants. PART MOTION TO EXCLUDE

_____________________________/ TESTIMONY

The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, defendants’ motion for leave to

amend the answer, and defendants’ motion to exclude or limit testimony of plaintiff’s expert

Suzanne Mellen came on for hearing before this court on May 2, 2007. Plaintiff appeared

by her counsel Wayne Berry and Peter Dolan; defendants United Association of Plumbers,

Pipefitters & Journeymen International, Local 38; and Local 38 Lakeside Haven, Inc.

appeared by their counsel Douglas D. Mandell; and the remaining defendants appeared by

their counsel James Baker, Katherine Ritchey, Elaine Wallace, and Heather Reinschmidt. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows for the reasons

stated at the hearing.

1. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED, as the court

finds that disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.

2. Defendants’ motion to amend the answer is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Suzanne

Case 4:04-cv-04949-PJH Document 301 Filed 05/03/07 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

Mellen is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as it pertains to

those portions of Ms. Mellen’s reports based on information obtained from the three

“subcontractors” – Jeff Lucas, Wayne Brandt, and Mike Conser. The motion is otherwise

denied. The parties shall meet and confer regarding any additional discovery with respect

to Mellen’s testimony. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall notify

Magistrate Judge Chen by joint letter.

4. In addition, no later than May 9, 2007, the parties shall advise the court if they

are willing to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for the trial of this action, and

if possible, which magistrate judge they would prefer. The parties will also be referred to a

settlement conference with a magistrate within 60 days.

5. In the event that the parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge for trial, the earliest trial date available will likely be May 2008. Prior to the trial, the

parties are requested to either stipulate as to all transactions that form the basis of the

Secretary’s claims of improper transfers of funds; or agree that defendants will submit to an

accounting to be presented to the court. 

Alternatively, the parties should consider whether they could best assist the court by

providing a financial or accounting expert to assist the court at trial. In addition, the

Secretary should determine whether she would object to any order of the court requiring

the parties to share expenses for such an appointment. Within one week following the

conclusion of the settlement conference, if the case does not settle, the parties shall meet

and confer and advise the court in writing as to how they wish to proceed in this regard. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04949-PJH Document 301 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2