Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04949/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04949-0/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary of 

Labor, U.S. Department of Labor,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-04949 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

LAWRENCE J. MAZZOLA, et al., MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On May 11, 2005, the court heard argument in the motion of plaintiff Elaine L. Chao,

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, for an order striking defendants’ 3rd through 13th,

15th ,16th, and 18th through 22nd affirmative defenses; striking the 23rd and 24th affirmative

defenses asserted by the defendant ERISA Plan Trustees and defendant ERISA Plans; and

striking the 23rd and 24th affirmative defenses asserted by defendant U.A. Local 38 of the

United Association of Journeymen Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry and

defendant Local 38 Lakeside Haven, Inc. 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.

The motion is GRANTED as to the 18th affirmative defense of presumption of

prudence, the 20th affirmative defense of discretionary conduct, and the 21st affirmative

defense of reasonable cause, because the Secretary asserts, and defendants have

Case 4:04-cv-04949-PJH Document 62 Filed 05/11/05 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

conceded, that these are evidentiary standards, not affirmative defenses.

The motion is DENIED as to the remaining affirmative defenses. In general, the court

finds that the arguments raised by the Secretary are premature, and would more properly be

presented in a motion for summary judgment, after the parties have engaged in discovery. 

The court finds that the Secretary will not be prejudiced by a denial of the motion to strike at

this stage of the litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005 

__________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04949-PJH Document 62 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2