Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03259/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03259-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BONILLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KDH BACKHOE SERVICE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-05-3259 EMC

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

ORDER

A Final Pretrial Conference was held in this matter on October 23, 2006. Pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e), this order memorializes the rulings made at the Final Pretrial

Conference.

A. Defendant George Claire Humphrey

In their joint pretrial statement, the parties indicated that they expected to stipulate to a

dismissal of George Claire Humphrey. A stipulation and proposed order for dismissal was filed on

October 23, 2006, shortly before the Final Pretrial Conference was held.

B. Defendant Wayne Humphrey

Wayne Humphrey appears to have filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of California. 

Counsel for Defendants provided to the Court a copy of a notice of stay of proceedings that

bankruptcy counsel for Wayne Humphrey prepared for this case. The parties agreed, and the Court

holds that, because of the bankruptcy proceeding, there is an automatic stay with respect to the suit

against Wayne Humphrey. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Case 3:05-cv-03259-EMC Document 54 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

C. Defendant KDH Backhoe

There is no evidence that KDH Backhoe has filed for bankruptcy. Accordingly, there is no

basis for a stay of the litigation with respect to KDH Backhoe.

D. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine

Plaintiffs have moved to exclude evidence of representations or oral modifications of the

collective bargaining agreements. None of the Defendants filed an opposition to the motion in

limine. Because Defendants failed to oppose the motion, and because case law supports Plaintiffs’

motion, the motion in limine is hereby GRANTED. See, e.g., Central States, Southeast &

Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 870 F.2d 1148, 1149 (7th Cir. 1989) (holding that a plan is “entitled

to enforce the writing without regard to understandings or defenses applicable to the original

parties”); Waggoner v. Dallaire, 649 F.2d 1362, 1366 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that provision of the

LRMA “does not specifically prohibit oral modifications of written trust agreements, but such a

limitation may be inferred from the context of the rest of the parent section”).

E. Submission to Court Based on Undisputed Facts

At the Final Pretrial Conference, both counsel for KDH Backhoe and counsel for Plaintiffs

stated that they did not wish to present any testimony or other evidence to the Court. The parties

therefore submitted the case for judicial resolution based on the undisputed facts and evidence

already submitted. Accordingly, the trial scheduled to begin on October 26, 2006, was vacated.

F. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The parties submitted joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as part of the

pretrial filings. After the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court instructed Plaintiffs to submit updated

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 27, 2006. The Court further instructed 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-03259-EMC Document 54 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment (with respect to KDH Backhoe). In order to give counsel

for Defendants an opportunity to apprise Wayne Humphrey’s bankruptcy counsel of the events that

transpired at the Final Pretrial Conference, the Court stated that it would not enter any judgment

before October 30, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03259-EMC Document 54 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3