Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02217/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02217-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DAVID BEST,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-02217 MJJ (MEJ)

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER

INFORMATION

The Court scheduled the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement and Attorneys' Fees on

October 27, 2005. Both parties failed to show up. Since neither party was present, the Court hereby

Orders further briefing on the following two questions:

1.) The Plan calls for the interest in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section

6621. Under the Code 20% seems to be the cap on the interest, not necessarily the

interest rate. Why is 20% used as the interest multiplier? 

2.) On what date and how much was the total amount Defendant paid?

Case 3:04-cv-02217-MJJ Document 37 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Defendant is to submit a response, if any, by November 23, 2005. Plaintiff shall submit a

response no later than November 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02217-MJJ Document 37 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2