Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06554/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06554-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH FAHEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WESTERN CONFERENCE OF

TEAMSTERS PENSION PLAN,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-06554 CRB

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL

EVIDENCE

In this action, Joseph Fahey seeks to recoup pension benefits. He originally filed a

claim for benefits with the administrator of his pension plan. But when the administrator

failed for months to rule on his claim, he took the matter to federal court. The plan

administrator objected to the lawsuit, claiming that Fahey had failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. This Court rejected that argument, and denied Defendant’s motion

to dismiss, noting that the putative failure to exhaust was due to the plan administrator’s own

failure to adjudicate Fahey’s claim within the time limits prescribed by ERISA. (The plan

administrator then belatedly denied Fahey’s claim.) By stipulation, the parties agreed that

the Court would review the record de novo to determine whether the denial of benefits was

proper. Cross-motions for summary judgment followed. The Court then “converted” the

cross-motions for summary judgment into a bench trial on the administrative record. See

Case 3:06-cv-06554-CRB Document 59 Filed 06/22/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\6554\order 2.wpd 2

Kearny v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). The question

presented is whether, between 1994 and 1999, Fahey was an employee of Local 912 when he

continued to serve as its president, even though he received no compensation for his services.

The Court finds that, given the unusual procedure posture of this case, and given the

significant factual disputes contained in the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment,

the submission of additional evidence is appropriate “to enable the full exercise of informed

and independent judgment.” Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben.

Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court therefore gives leave for the parties to take

the depositions of Joseph Fahey and Sergio Lopez. The parties are ordered to complete these

two depositions not later than July 31, 2007. The depositions shall not last longer than four

hours each. The depositions shall both occur on the same day, at a time and location to be

determined by the parties, with Fahey’s deposition to be taken first. With respect to the

exhibits that the parties may use during their examination of these witnesses, the parties shall

be restricted to the materials already submitted to the Court in connection with their crossmotions for summary judgment, unless they can agree to stipulate to the introduction of

additional evidence.

Upon the conclusion of these two depositions, the parties shall prepare simultaneous

supplemental briefs, not to exceed ten pages, and shall file them not later than August 10,

2007. The parties shall attach to their briefs the complete transcript of the two depositions

(with Fahey’s deposition as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s brief, and Lopez’s deposition as Exhibit

A to Defendant’s brief). The parties shall also attach as exhibits to their supplemental briefs

any of the additional evidence that the parties have agreed by stipulation to introduce. Upon

the filing of these supplemental briefs, the matter will thereafter be submitted and the Court

will issue its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06554-CRB Document 59 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 2