Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03506/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03506-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

1The parties brought this dispute before the Court through letter briefs dated November 16, 2005,

November 30, 2005, and December 5, 2005. (Docket Nos. 208, 233, and 235)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MINIACE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION,

MARITECH CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant and

Cross-Claimants,

vs.

JOSEPH N. MINIACE; JEANNETTE COBURN;

MICHAEL E. CORRIGAN;

BENMARK, INC.; CORRIGAN & COMPANY;

and BENMARK WEST,

Counterdefendant and 

Cross-Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03506 SI

ORDER GRANTING MICHAEL

CORRIGAN’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Now before the Court is a motion by cross-defendant Michael Corrigan to extend the summary

judgment deadline in this case.1 The previous deadline for dispositive motions was September 23, 2005.

Corrigan requests an extension until January 20, 2005, to file his summary judgment motion.

The Court GRANTS Corrigan’s request. Based on this Court’s tentative ruling at the July 8, 2005,

oral argument on Corrigan’s motion to dismiss, Corrigan believed most of PMA’s claims against him would

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 249 Filed 12/23/05 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

be dismissed. On September 13, 2005, only ten days before the September 23, 2005, summary judgment

deadline, Corrigan learned forthe first time thatmany ofPMA’s claims would survive his motion. In addition,

PMA amended its complaint on September 30, 2005, adding one cause of action against Corrigan and

modifying another. Given the state of uncertainty resulting from these events, the Court believes Corrigan has

demonstrated good cause for missing the September 23, 2005, deadline.

PMA argues that Corrigan’s request should be denied because Corriganwas not diligent in his efforts

to comply with the Court’s scheduling order. The Court agrees that Corrigan was somewhat dilatory in his

approach to the September 23, 2005, deadline. As soon as Corrigan learned that his motion to dismiss had

been denied, he should have been more proactive about approaching the Court and opposing counsel to

propose modifications to the schedulingorder. Nevertheless, Corrigan first approached PMA about extending

the deadline onNovember 2, 2005, only 33 days after PMA filed its amended complaint. The Court does not

find this delay so excessive as to justify denying Corrigan’s request.

CONCLUSION

Corrigan’s motion to extend the summary judgment deadline is GRANTED (Docket No. 208).

Corrigan may file his summary judgment motion on or before January 20, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 23, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 249 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 2