Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03506/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03506-21/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 MINIACE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Counterclaimants and

Cross-Claimants,

vs.

JOSEPH N. MINIACE; JEANNETTE

COBURN; MICHAEL E. CORRIGAN;

BENMARK, INC.; CORRIGAN &

COMPANY; and BENMARK WEST,

Counterdefendant and 

Cross-Defendants. /

No. C 04-03506 SI

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

ORDER

On May 16, 2006 , the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter,

which is set for trial beginning May 22, 2006. All parties were represented by counsel. The following

matters were resolved:

1. Bifurcation of court and jury trials: The parties agree that the SEBP-related ERISA

claims must be tried to the Court, and that the other claims may be tried to a jury, as set out

specifically at pages 6-7 of the Joint Pretrial Conference Statement. At the pretrial conference, all

parties agreed to bifurcate the Court-tried ERISA claims from the jury claims, and to conduct the

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 The Corrigan parties have effectively moved to dismiss PMA’s 15th claim for relief. Both

parties requested and received leave to file a memorandum on this issue by no later than 10 a.m. on May

18, 2006. The status of PMA’s 15th claim will be resolved by the Court by separate order after receipt

of these memoranda.

2

ERISA trial first. The jury trial on the remaining issues will take place thereafter, on a date to be set

after the conclusion of the ERISA phase. With the exception of PMA’s 15th claim for relief against

the Corrigan defendants (“claim for relief for vicarious liability for breach of fiduciary duty by

others”), the parties anticipate no substantial factual overlap between the issues to be decided in the

ERISA trial and the jury trial. To avoid unnecessary duplication, all parties except the Corrigan

parties agreed to waive a jury on any issues decided by the Court in the ERISA trial which must also

be decided in the jury trial.1

2. Trial exhibits: The parties will submit a single list of proposed trial exhibits, truncated

to include only the exhibits necessary to the ERISA trial. No later than May 22, 2006, the first day

of trial, the parties shall submit both the joint exhibit list and copies of their trial exhibits, in binders

with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit. The court shall be provided with three

sets (for the court, the file and the witness) and each side shall provide one set for the other side.

3. Findings of fact and conclusions of law: The parties shall, no later than May 22, 2006,

present the court with their proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, both in hard copy and

on disk in WordPerfect 10 format. The parties shall meet and confer to present as many agreed-upon

findings of fact as possible. The agreed-upon findings should be clearly designated "joint" findings

and, upon such agreement, no further evidence on these points will be required absent further direction

from the Court.

4. Trial schedule: The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., with a 15 minute

break at 10:00 a.m. and a 30 minute break at 11:45 a.m., all times approximate.

5. Timing of trial: The parties estimated that the trial should take approximately eight

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 6
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

 For these purposes, PMA constitutes one side, and Miniace, Coburn and Corrigan represent

one side.

3

days. Based on this estimate, each side2

 shall have up to one hour for opening statements; up to

seventeen hours total for presentation of evidence, which includes direct and cross-examination of live

witnesses and presentation of all exhibits; and up to one hour for closing arguments.

6. Motions in limine: The parties filed 23 motions in limine, as follows:

Motions by PMA:

PMA No. 1: to exclude evidence of Jeanette Coburn’s financial condition or disposition

of funds: GRANTED, except as to funds received from PMA and Maritech and proceeds from life

insurance obtained through PHA. See also Miniace/Coburn No. 5.

PMA No. 2: to exclude evidence regarding alleged anti-union bias of PMA or its

members: GRANTED, except evidence demonstrating that corporate governance decisions (Board

minutes, delegation of authority etc.) were based on the need or desire to keep information from the

ILWU.

PMA No. 3: to exclude evidence regarding Miniace’s unemployment hearing:

GRANTED.

PMA No. 4: to exclude evidence regarding policy changes after Miniace’s termination:

DENIED. To the extent that FRE 407 (subsequent repairs) applies to such policy changes, such

evidence will not be admitted to prove “negligence” or “culpable conduct” by PMA. Such evidence

may be relevant to Miniace’s contentions concerning how PMA was governed prior to his termination

and whether he had been delegated various authorities over the SEBP. To this extent it would be

admissible.

PMA No. 5: to exclude evidence regarding Hemingway’s alleged bias towards

Miniace: DENIED; goes to bias and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. 

PMA No. 6: to exclude evidence regarding compensation decisions made after

Miniace’s termination: DENIED, except with respect to Mercer exhibits.

PMA No. 7: to exclude testimony and expert reports of Bruno Falvo: DENIED, to the

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

extent that the motion is based on general lack of “requisite reliable foundation” in accordance with

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526

U.S. 137 (1999). This ruling is without prejudice to specific objections to specific questions at trial.

Motions by Miniace and Coburn:

Miniace/Coburn No. 1: to exclude evidence regarding PMA’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 22nd

and 23rd cross-claims for relief: GRANTED IN PART. Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), an ERISA

beneficiary may bring an action against an ERISA fiduciary to recover losses to an ERISA plan or

profits made by the fiduciary through wrongful use of plan assets. Neither occurred in this case.

Instead, PMA seeks to bring a claim under § 1132(a)(2) to “ensure that [the SEBP’s] death benefits

are disbursed in accordance with the [original] terms of the SEBP.” PMA, however, has not provided

the Court with a single case in which a party has maintained a suit under § 1132(a)(2) based on a nonfinancial injury to the plan. Rather, every case brought under § 1132(a)(2) that this Court has

reviewed has involved monetary losses or misappropriation of plan assets. Accordingly, the Court

finds that PMA may not maintain its causes of action under § 1132(a)(2). Rather, the appropriate

vehicle for this lawsuit is the “catchall” provision of § 1132(a)(3). See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S.

489 (1996). Thus, the motion is GRANTED as to PMA’s 22nd cross-claim against Miniace and 23rd

cross-claim against Coburn, both based on § 1132(a)(2); and the motion is DENIED as to PMA’s 1st

claim against Coburn and 2nd, 3rd and 4th claims against Coburn and Miniace., all based on

§ 1132(a)(3). 

Miniace/Coburn No. 2: to exclude evidence regarding Maritech’s 27th and 28th crossclaims for relief: GRANTED. Coburn seeks to dismiss these claims by Maritech based on the oneyear limitation period set out in California Code of Civil Procedure § 366.2. These claims seek return

of directors’ fees and benefits provided by Maritech to McMahon before McMahon’s death, and could

have been brought against him before he died. They are subject to CCP § 366.2 and are thus timebarred. See Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, 24 Ca. 4th 301, 313 (2000).

Miniace/Coburn No. 3: to exclude PMA expert witness Lawrence Brody’s “amended

and supplemental exhibit C”: DENIED.

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Miniace/Coburn No. 4: to exclude testimony by late-disclosed witnesses Hayashi,

Sweedlund, Leckrone, Saltgaver, Sabarese and Parris: DENIED as to Saltgaver. GRANTED as to

the other listed witnesses; testimony by these witnesses will be excluded from PMA’s case in chief.

This ruling is without prejudice to calling such witnesses as impeachment witnesses.

Miniace/Coburn No. 5: to exclude evidence of Coburn’s wealth or financial condition:

GRANTED as to Coburn’s wealth or financial condition; DENIED as to monies received from PMA

or Maritech and proceeds from life insurance obtained through PMA. See also PMA No. 1.

Miniace/Coburn No. 6: to exclude evidence regarding line of credit procured by Tom

McMahon: GRANTED; FRE 403, 608(b).

Miniace/Coburn No. 7: to exclude evidence regarding PMA’s 20th cross-claim for an

accounting: GRANTED.

Miniace/Coburn No. 8: to exclude evidence pertaining to John Cook’s and David

Kuhner’s investigations: DENIED. Such testimony may be relevant to the Board’s decision

concerning Miniace bonuses; as such, it would be admitted not for the truth of the report itself, but

rather to show that it was provided to the Board. Further, any party admissions, or authorized

admissions, may be introduced if relevant.

Miniace/Coburn No. 9: to exclude evidence regarding severance proceedings: GRANT.

Miniace/Coburn No. 10: to exclude evidence regarding McKenna’s employment

contract, of which the Board was unaware prior to Miniace’s termination: DENY; may be relevant to

Miniace’s breach of fiduciary duty and may demonstrate “intent, plan or absence of mistake” FRE

404(b).

Miniace/Coburn No. 11: to exclude Maritech’s supplemental objections and responses

to Coburn’s first set of interrogatories: GRANTED; untimely and prejudicial.

Motions by Corrigan:

Corrigan No. 1: to exclude testimony and reports of Gregory Wimmer: DENIED, to the

extent that the motion is based on general lack of “requisite reliable foundation” in accordance with

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

U.S. 137 (1999). This ruling is without prejudice to specific objections to specific questions at trial.

Corrigan No. 2: to exclude testimony by PMA’s experts as to McMahon’s retirement

on April 30, 2002: DENIED.

Corrigan No. 3: to preclude evidence about Corrigan’s second home in France and his

air travel in private air planes: DENIED. Evidence of the close personal relationship between Corrigan

and McMahon, Coburn and Miniace may be relevant to bias, interest or motive.

Corrigan No. 4: to preclude evidence about Corrigan’s being named as original or

successor executor and trustee for McMahon’s or Coburn’s wills or trusts: DENIED. Evidence of the

close personal relationship between Corrigan and McMahon, Coburn and Miniace may be relevant to

bias, interest or motive.

7. Miscellaneous: Each party shall give the other 48 hours’ notice of the witnesses it

expects to call at trial. The parties shall cooperate in calling witnesses when they are available, so as

to minimize waste of Court time and inconvenience to witnesses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03506-SI Document 397 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 6