Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PROPOSED ORDER ON STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 

CONCERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC.; et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION CONCERNING 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

THE FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

BRENDA DIMARO and 

HOLLIE LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 384 Filed 08/26/08 Page 1 of 2
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- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PROPOSED ORDER ON STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 

CONCERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiffs (other than plaintiff Kathleen Ellis) and defendants, The Firm of 

John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. (“JDS”), Hollister Incorporated (“Hollister”), Alan F. 

Herbert and Richard I. Fremgen have stipulated and jointly requested that the Court 

conduct a telephonic conference with counsel (a) to clarify what effect, if any, Rule 

12(d) of the Federal Rules of Procedure will have on defendants’ presently pending 

Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint; and (b) to 

address the appropriate course of further proceedings on defendants’ pending 

Motion to Dismiss. The court, however, declines to hold such a hearing. Whatever 

effect Rule 12(c) may or may not have on defendant’s pending motion is a question 

of law, which the court will have to determine after considering the respective 

positions of the parties as set forth in their pleadings and arguments. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 26, 2008 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 384 Filed 08/26/08 Page 2 of 2