Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-6/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

---

-1- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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

PHILIP M. MILLER (SBN 87877) 

KRISTEN McCULLOCH (SBN 177558) 

SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 

120 Howard Street, Suite 520 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 882-7900 

(415) 882-9287 – Facsimile 

pmiller@sjlawcorp.com 

kmcculloch@sjlawcorp.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, 

MIKE GARCIA, Trustee, CHARLES 

GILCHRIST, Trustee, RAYMOND C. NANN, 

Trustee, LARRY T. SMITH, Trustee, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, 

 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: C 06-03078 CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST 

FUND (“Trust Fund”) and Defendant ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE (“Defendant”), 

by and through their counsel of record, respectfully request the Court to reschedule the date 

currently set for the filing of any dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment to permit the parties 

further time to resolve the discovery disputes which have arisen since the time the deadline to file 

any Motion for Summary Judgment was originally scheduled, to allow the parties adequate time to 

complete the depositions previously ordered by the Court, and to allow the parties to attend a 

second mediation session, as ordered by the Court. In support of this stipulation and proposed 

order, the parties provide the following information: 

/ / / 

AMENDED

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 6
-2- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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. This is an action by the Trust Fund to collect certain claimed delinquent 

contributions. The Complaint was filed on May 8, 2006. Defendant filed its answer on June 26, 

2006. 

2. The matter was referred to mediation before Mediator Charles E. Farnsworth. An 

initial mediation session was held on October 27, 2006. Due to significant factual disputes, the 

parties agreed to continue the mediation process and informally exchange information. 

3. On December 12, 2006, Plaintiffs propounded formal discovery, both a Request for 

Production of Documents, Set One, and Interrogatories, Set One, on Defendant. 

4. On January 3, 2007, Counsel for Defendant telephoned Counsel for Plaintiffs to 

request an extension to respond to the discovery requests. Plaintiffs granted an extension of time 

to respond to February 6, 2007. Due to Defendant’s counsel’s trial schedule, the second mediation 

session was postponed. 

5. Defendant served its discovery responses on February 6, 2007. Plaintiffs received 

Defendant’s discovery responses on February 9, 2007. 

6. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses were incomplete. 

7. On February 15, 2007, Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel met and 

conferred concerning each of the discovery responses at such time Defendant agreed that it would 

review its responses and may provide supplemental responses. 

8. At the Case Management Conference held on March 2, 2007, the Court ordered 

Defendant to make available for deposition the employees it asserts were Supervisors. The Court 

also issued an Order setting the hearing date on any Motion for Summary Judgment for June 29, 

2007 at 10:00 a.m. and ordered the parties to attend a second mediation session prior to June 29, 

2007. 

9. Counsel for Defendant was in trial during all of March and part of April and, 

therefore, informed Plaintiffs’ Counsel that he was not available for depositions until May 3 and 4, 

2007. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 6
-3- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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. Between February 15, 2007 and March 27, 2007, Plaintiffs’ Counsel requested 

whether supplemental responses would be provided and was informed that supplemental responses 

would be provided. 

11. On March 26, 2007, Defendant’s Counsel notified Plaintiffs’ Counsel that seven 

additional of the employees that Defendant asserted were Supervisors and that the Court ordered 

to be made available for deposition, were recently terminated due to Defendant’s loss of contracts 

for several of its buildings. Therefore Defendant had no control over them and could not force 

them to appear for deposition. 

12. On Tuesday March 27, 2007, Plaintiff’s Counsel requested to be informed whether 

supplemental responses would be provided or a written statement that Defendant does not intend 

to provide supplemental responses. Plaintiffs also requested to be informed whether Defendant 

would stipulate to move the Summary Judgment hearing date. 

13. On Wednesday March 28, 2007, Counsel for Defendant notified Counsel for 

Plaintiffs that he was waiting to receive additional information from Defendant and that once that 

information was received Counsel for Defendant would notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel whether 

Defendant intended to supplement. Defendant agreed at that time to stipulate to move the 

Summary Judgment hearing date. 

14. On Thursday March 29, 2007, Plaintiff’s Counsel notified Defendant’s Counsel 

that if supplemental responses were not provided by the end of the week that Plaintiff’s Counsel 

would begin drafting a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses. 

15. On Friday March 30, 2007, Defendant’s Counsel sent a letter to Plaintiffs stating 

that supplemental responses would be provided on April 16, 2007, and that Defendant believed a 

motion to compel was premature. 

16. Plaintiffs’ Counsel informed Defendant’s Counsel that they could not afford any 

further delay and on April 11, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Production of 

Documents and Interrogatory Responses. 

17. Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman was assigned to this matter to resolve 

outstanding discovery issues. 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 6
-4- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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. On April 16, 2007, Defendant served supplemental discovery responses, which 

were received via overnight courier on April 17, 2007. Defendant’s supplemental responses 

maintained the original objections to every request, but provided additional substantive responses 

and additional documents. 

19. On April 20, 2007, Judge Zimmerman held a telephone conference with G. Warren 

Bleeker, counsel for defendant, and Kristen McCulloch, Counsel for Plaintiffs, during which 

Judge Zimmerman gave direction and guidance to Counsel for the parties concerning the 

discovery in dispute. Judge Zimmerman ordered the parties to meet and confer further and set the 

following dates for resolving the discovery disputes: (1) the parties must meet and confer by April 

27, 2007; (2) Plaintiffs must file any supplement its Motion to Compel Production of Documents 

and Interrogatory Responses by May 2, 2007; (3) Defendant must file its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses (including any 

supplement) by May 11, 2007; (4) Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses must be filed by May 

16, 2007; (5) the Motion on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents and 

Interrogatory Responses will be heard May 30, 2007. 

20. On April 25, 2007, Defendant’s Counsel and Plaintiffs’ Counsel further met and 

conferred concerning the Production of Documents, Set One, and Interrogatories, Set One, on 

Advance. During this meet and confer session, the Defendant agreed to produce further responses 

and produce additional documents by Monday April 20, 2007, subject to the parties agreeing to a 

confidentiality agreement. 

21. Depositions of the employees that Defendant asserts were Supervisors who are still 

employed by Defendant are scheduled for May 4, 2007. 

22. Plaintiffs are attempting to locate the eighteen employees who no longer work for 

Defendant and whom Defendants assert were Supervisors in order to interview each of them and 

obtain signed declarations concerning the type of work each performed during the period at issue 

in the Complaint. 

/ / / 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 4 of 6
-5- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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

23. The outstanding discovery at issue and the deposition or interviews of the 

employees that Defendant asserts were Supervisors all relate to the most significant issue to be 

resolved by any dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the parties have been 

ordered to attend a second mediation session prior to this hearing date. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly request the Court to issue an Order that 

reschedules the hearing date for any dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment from June 29, 

2007 at 10:00 a.m. to August 31, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. or another time thereafter convenient with the 

Court’s calendar. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Date: May 1, 2007 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 

 By: /S/ 

 KRISTEN MCCULLOCH 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al. 

Date: May 1, 2007 BROWNE WOODS & GEORGE LLP 

 By: /S/ 

 G. Warren Bleeker 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 5 of 6
-6- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE THE DATE 

FOR HEARING ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case No.: C 06-02335 SBA

P:\CLIENTS\CSEHT\Cases\ADVA2\Pleadings\Stip and Prop Order Ext. MSJ date 042007.DOC 

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

Order 

1. Based on the foregoing, and good cause so appearing, the Court hereby reschedules 

the hearing on any dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment from June 29, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. to 

August 31, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. 

2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3, all civil motions shall be noticed for 

a hearing not less than thirty-five (35) calendar days after service. The opposition and supporting 

papers shall be filed not less than twenty-one (21) days before the noticed hearing date. The reply 

shall be filed not less than fourteen (14) days before the hearing date. Documents not filed in 

compliance with these time specifications will not be considered by the Court. 

3. Note that pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), the Court may, in its discretion, adjudicate 

motions without oral argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 Charles R. Breyer 

United States District Judge 

August 10, 2007 May 2, 2007 as amended.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 33 Filed 05/03/07 Page 6 of 6