Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05566/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05566-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7456087.1 

C 06-5566 CRB

STIP. AND [PROP] ORDER RE MOT. TO 

DISMISS SAC

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

D. WARD KALLSTROM, State Bar No. 76937 

NICOLE A. DILLER, State Bar No. 154842 

DONALD P. SULLIVAN, State Bar No. 191080 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: 415.442.1000 

Fax: 415.442.1001 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BECHTEL CORPORATION, THE BECHTEL 

TRUST & THRIFT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITTEE, PEGGI KNOX, AND PAT 

DAMSGAARD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

BEVERLY KANAWI AND SALVADOR 

AQUINO, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BECHTEL CORPORATION, THE 

BECHTEL TRUST & THRIFT PLAN 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, 

PEGGI KNOX, AND PAT 

DAMSGAARD, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 06-5566 CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE A 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Date: March 2, 2007 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 8 

Judge: The Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Beverly Kanawi, Salvador Aquino, and Zoltan Incze filed their 

initial Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Demand for a Jury Trial in the above-titled 

action on September 11, 2006; 

WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006, the Court granted Defendants Bechtel Corporation, the 

Bechtel Trust & Thrift Plan Committee, Peggi Knox, and Pat Damsgaard an extension of time to 

respond to the Complaint and set their response date for December 11, 2006; 

WHEREAS, before Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiffs filed their 

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 38 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7456087.1 2 

C 06-5566 CRB

STIP. AND [PROP] ORDER RE MOT. TO 

DISMISS SAC

First Amended Complaint and Demand for a Jury Trial in this action on November 9, 2006; 

WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 

for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Demand for a Jury Trial and Defective 

Allegations of Fraudulent Concealment (“Motion to Dismiss”) in this action on December 11, 

2006; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel stipulated on January 9, 2007 to dismiss 

Zoltan Incze as a named plaintiff from this action; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on January 

19, 2007; 

WHEREAS, in their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs requested 

leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint to correct a typographical error; 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss is due to be filed on Friday, February 16, 2007 with a hearing on March 2, 2007; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave of Court to file their proposed Second 

Amended Complaint on January 25, 2007 with a hearing date of March 2, 2007; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs proposed Second Amended Complaint is substantially similar to 

their First Amended Complaint and seeks only to remove references to Zoltan Incze from the 

pleading and to replace “Bechtel” with “Defendants” in Paragraphs 118, 119, 121, and 122; 

WHEREAS, Defendants do not oppose the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended 

Complaint; and 

WHEREAS, due to the fact that the First Amended Complaint and Second Amended 

Complaint are substantially similar, the majority of Defendants’ arguments in their Motion to 

Dismiss apply to Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint, making it in the parties’ and 

the Court’s interest to avoid the delay and expense associated with the filing of a new motion to 

dismiss. 

NOW THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE PARTIES HEREBY 

STIPULATE and AGREE that: 

(a) Defendants do not oppose the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended 

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 38 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7456087.1 3 

C 06-5566 CRB

STIP. AND [PROP] ORDER RE MOT. TO 

DISMISS SAC

Complaint; 

(b) The parties agree that Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint on 

or before February 15, 2007; 

(c) Defendants’ December 11, 2006 Motion to Dismiss and supporting documents 

shall be deemed to notice and provide argument relating to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Second 

Amended Complaint and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Demand for a Jury Trial and Defective Allegations 

of Fraudulent Concealment (“Motion to Dismiss the SAC”). 

(d) Plaintiffs’ January 19, 2007 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

shall be deemed to be Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the SAC; 

(e) As originally stipulated to and ordered by the Court, Defendants’ shall file 

their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition on February 16, 2007; 

(f) The March 2, 2007 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall relate to 

Defendants’ deemed Motion to Dismiss the SAC. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: February 9, 2007 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By /S/ Donald P. Sullivan 

Donald P. Sullivan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Dated: February 9, 2007 SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON 

By /S/ Daniel Conlisk (as authorized on 

Feb. 9, 2007) 

Daniel Conlisk 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 38 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 4
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7456087.1 4 

C 06-5566 CRB

STIP. AND [PROP] ORDER RE MOT. TO 

DISMISS SAC

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Having reviewed the parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Deeming Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint to be a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

Second Amended Complaint, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING for the relief requested therein, 

it is hereby ORDERED that: 

(a) Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before February 

15, 2007; 

(c) Defendants’ December 11, 2006 Motion to Dismiss and supporting documents 

shall be deemed to notice and provide argument relating to the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Second 

Amended Complaint and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Demand for a Jury Trial and Defective Allegations 

of Fraudulent Concealment (“Motion to Dismiss the SAC”). 

(d) Plaintiffs’ January 19, 2007 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

shall be deemed to be Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the SAC; 

(e) As originally stipulated to and ordered by the Court, Defendants’ shall file 

their Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition on February 16, 2007; 

(f) The March 2, 2007 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall relate to 

Defendants’ deemed Motion to Dismiss the SAC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: , 2007 

HON. CHARLES R. BREYER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

7456087v1 

February 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-05566-CRB Document 38 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4