Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00221/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00221-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

PETITION THAT MAGISTRATE SPERO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION TO NOT EXCUSE DEFENDANT 

JOHN BONILLA FROM APPEARING AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON APRIL 20, 2006, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, BONILLA BE AVAILABLE TELEPHONICALLY

Case No. C-05-00221 MMC

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

510.337.1001

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

SANDRA RAE BENSON, Bar No. 121324

ALAN G. CROWLEY, Bar No. 203438

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501-1091

Telephone (510) 337-1001

Fax (510) 337-1023

Attorneys for Defendants

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION NO. 3 and JOHN BONILLA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORENCE M. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION 

NO. 3, JOHN BONILLA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-00221 MMC

PETITION THAT MAGISTRATE 

SPERO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION 

TO NOT EXCUSE DEFENDANT JOHN 

BONILLA FROM APPEARING AT THE 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON 

APRIL 20, 2006, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, BONILLA BE 

AVAILABLE TELEPHONICALLY

Date: April 20, 2006

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: Courtroom A, 15th Fl. 

Federal Bldg., 450 Golden Gate Ave.

San Francisco, CA 

We were informed on April 11th, by Judge Spero’s staff that the Judge denied Defendant’s 

Petition to excuse Bonilla from personally appearing at the April 20th settlement conference 

hearing in the above-referenced matter. Defendant respectfully request the Judge reconsider this 

decision or, in the alternative, the Judge allow Mr. Bonilla to be available via telephone. 

There appears to be a misconception on the part of the Judge’s staff about whether 

Defendants agreed to the date of April 20th for the settlement conference. I have been involved in 

this case and recall specifically that the Judge’s staff forced April 20th on us as the date for the 

Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 51 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 52 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

PETITION THAT MAGISTRATE SPERO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION TO NOT EXCUSE DEFENDANT 

JOHN BONILLA FROM APPEARING AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON APRIL 20, 2006, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, BONILLA BE AVAILABLE TELEPHONICALLY

Case No. C-05-00221 MMC

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

510.337.1001

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

settlement conference before we were able to confirm that Bonilla was available on April 20th. 

Indeed, we had previously told Judge Spero’s staff that we were available May 8th and May 9th, 

but we were not certain that we were available April 20th. Nonetheless, the Judge’s staff ordered 

the settlement conference occur on April 20th. By the time the Judge’s Order arrived, we were 

notified that Defendant Bonilla was not available April 20th because he had a speaking 

engagement with the retirees of Local 3 out of state which had been scheduled months earlier. 

There had been a delay, because Mr. Bonilla’s secretary was not in on the days that we called, 

which was why we were not able to get back to the Judge in the one to two days in which he 

requested a response. 

Defendants had hoped that the court would dismiss Bonilla from the lawsuit pursuant to 

Defendants’ summary judgment motion. But it became apparent on April 7, and eventually upon 

receipt of the court’s Order on April 12, that the Court would not dismiss Bonilla individually from 

the lawsuit. Defendants had hoped that, should the court dismiss Bonilla, then there would be no 

need to petition the Magistrate Judge to excuse Bonilla from attendance of the settlement 

conference. Since Defendants’ summary judgment motion was denied, we repetition the 

Magistrate Judge.

There will be sufficient representation on behalf of Defendants to conduct a meaningful 

settlement discussion on April 20th without the presence of John Bonilla. While he has remained 

as a named Defendant due to a quirk in the definition of “employer” under the FMLA, even if any 

liability were ever found, he would not pay a dime since any expenses he incurred in the 

performance of his job would, under California Labor Code § 2802, necessarily be reimbursed by 

Local 3. Defendants will be present with a representative from Local 3, a representative on behalf 

of Mr. Bonilla, and an in person insurance representative. Given this level of representation, and 

the apparent misunderstanding of the Judge’s staff as to whether Defendants had agreed to April 

20th as an acceptable settlement conference date, we respectfully request the Judge reconsider his 

decision to deny Bonilla’s request that he be excused from the April 20th settlement conference.

Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 51 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 52 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

PETITION THAT MAGISTRATE SPERO RECONSIDER HIS DECISION TO NOT EXCUSE DEFENDANT 

JOHN BONILLA FROM APPEARING AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON APRIL 20, 2006, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, BONILLA BE AVAILABLE TELEPHONICALLY

Case No. C-05-00221 MMC

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

510.337.1001

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

Alternatively, since we believe the court scheduled the April 20th settlement conference on 

a day that was not convenient to Defendants, we request that Mr. Bonilla be immediately available 

by phone, should there be a need to consult with him during the settlement conference. While he is 

speaking at a retiree function on April 20th, we could arrange to make him available by phone, 

should the need arise during the settlement conference.

For the above good cause, the court should excuse Bonilla from appearance at the 

settlement conference on April 20th. Alternatively, the court should allow Mr. Bonilla to be 

available by phone.

Date: April 13, 2006

 WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Alan G. Crowley

ALAN G. CROWLEY

Attorneys for Defendants

Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 

and John Bonilla

108564/417472

Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 51 Filed 04/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-00221-MMC Document 52 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3