Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04599-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY TOTTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

R.G. CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-04599 JSW

ORDER RE CONTINUATION OF

STAY AND SETTING STATUS

CONFERENCE

On June 10, 2005, this Court granted a stipulation by the parties to stay this action

pending resolution of a third part complaint. The third party complaint was filed on July 21,

2005 and the summons issued on July 26, 2005. On October 28, 2005, third party Northern

California District Council of Laborers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the

alternative, for summary judgment which was granted by this Court on December 13, 2005. 

The Court dismissed the claims against the District Council by defendants/third party

complainants, R.G. Construction and Rudy Gonzalez, for failure to exhaust contractual

remedies under the Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Court noted R.G. Construction’s

request to stay the entire action pending the outcome of arbitration and reserved the issue in

order to give Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond. Although the stipulation granting a stay of

this action pending determination of the third party complaint indicated that the “parties agree

that a determination of the validity of the underlying contract and/or its termination needs to be

decided before the issue of this case can be properly and fully adjudicated,” the Court afforded 

Case 3:02-cv-04599-JSW Document 65 Filed 03/06/06 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

Plaintiffs the opportunity to object to a continued stay of this matter. On January 10, 2006,

Plaintiffs filed objections to the continued stay of this action. 

Plaintiffs contend that the present action is not subject to arbitration and the stay should

be lifted. However, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay this action pending

resolution of a third part complaint and that complaint is now the subject of arbitration and,

presumably, has not been resolved. 

Therefore, on January 27, 2006, this Court issued an order to show cause why the

parties’ stipulation to stay this action should not remain in effect. Defendants served a written

response on February 10, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on February 23, 2006.

Defendants filed a reply on March 3, 2006. The parties were required to address the status of

the third party complaint in arbitration, set out an estimated timeline for the resolution of the

third party complaint, and outline the most effective approach for resolution of the matter

remaining before this Court. 

Having received the parties’ papers and the estimated timeline for resolution of the third

party complaint in arbitration, the Court continues the stay effective until June 2, 2006. By no

later than May 26, 2006, the parties must file a joint report on the status of the arbitration and

resolution of the underlying matter. The Court will not continue the stay further absent a

showing of good cause and diligence on the part of the parties to the arbitration to resolve the

underlying matter. The Court further sets a status conference for June 2, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. to

address the expeditious resolution of this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-04599-JSW Document 65 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2