Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001-17/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

---

Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 1 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

J. Mark Moore, State Bar No. 180473 

 jmm@mllawyers.net 

H. Scott Leviant, State Bar No. 200834 

 hsl@mllawyers.net 

MOORE & LEVIANT LLP 

20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140 

Woodland Hills, CA 91364 

Telephone: (877) 360-7020 

Facsimile: (310) 870-7020 

Jeffrey K. Berns (SBN 131351) 

 jberns@law111.com 

Lee A. Weiss (SBN 297834) 

 lweiss@law111.com 

Albert G. Lum (SBN 259053) 

 alum@law111.com 

BERNS WEISS LLP 

20700 Ventura Blvd. Suite 140 

Woodland Hills, CA 91364 

Telephone: (818) 961-2000 

Facsimile: (818) 999-1500 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID SLACK, individually, and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING 

ENGINEERS, a trade union, et al.

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC 

CLASS ACTION 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO DISMISS THE THIRD 

THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 6
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 2 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

TO THE COURT, TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiffs David Slack, John Jarboe, Ken 

Bettis, Kenny Mendoza and Clyde Eli (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Russell E. Burns, Dan 

Reding, Jim Sullivan, Carl Goff, Pete Figueiredo, Steve Ingersoll, Kevin J. Albanese, F.G. 

Crosthwaite, Thomas Holsman, John M. Humber, and Richard Piombo (“Defendants”) (Plaintiffs 

and Defendants are the “Parties”). The Stipulation is entered into based upon the following facts: 

A. On October 20, 2014, with leave of Court, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”). (Dkts. 176, 179.) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC. 

(Dkts. 187, 188.) 

B. On March 16, 2015, the Court issued its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 199.) 

C. Following the Court’s ruling on all Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, the SAC 

presently alleges ERISA violations with respect to the “Longview investment” made 

by the Pension Fund (Claims 1 and 2), other, factually distinct ERISA violations 

related to alleged CBA circumvention affecting several Trusts (Claims 3-7) and 

alleged improper write-offs of signatory employer debts affecting all of the Trusts 

(Claim 8), and LMRDA violations against Defendants Burns, Goff and Reding related 

to alleged statements made following the filing of this action (Claim 10). 

D. The Court held a Case Management Conference on April 2, 2015. The Parties have 

commenced discovery in the matter. 

E. The Parties have agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of the Third through Eighth 

Claims for Relief, with each Party to bear their own fees and costs related to those 

Claims. 

F. Plaintiffs and Defendants Russell E. Burns, Dan Reding, and Carl Goff have agreed to 

the dismissal without prejudice of the Tenth Claim for Relief 

Therefore, Plaintiffs and the Defendants stipulate as follows: 

1. As to the Third through Eighth Claims for Relief in the SAC, Plaintiffs, in their 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 6
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 3 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

individual capacities as no class has been certified in this matter, hereby dismiss those 

Claims with prejudice. As to the Third through Eighth Claims for Relief in the SAC, 

the claims of absent putative class members are dismissed without prejudice. 

2. All Parties shall bear their own fees and costs with respect to the Third through Eighth 

Claims for Relief in the SAC. 

3. As to the Tenth Claim for Relief in the SAC, Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities 

as no class has been certified in this matter, hereby dismiss the Tenth Claim without 

prejudice. As to the Tenth Claim for Relief in the SAC, the claims of absent putative 

class members are dismissed without prejudice. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 23, 2015 BERNS WEISS LLP

 

 By: /s/ Lee A. Weiss 

 Jeffrey K. Berns 

 Lee A. Weiss 

 Albert G. Lum 

 MOORE & LEVIANT LLP 

J. Mark Moore 

H. Scott Leviant 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs David Slack, John 

Jarboe, Ken Bettis, Kenny Mendoza and Clyde 

Eli 

Dated: June 23, 2015 LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH C. ABSALOM

 

 By: /s/ George R. Nemiroff 

 Kenneth C. Absalom 

 George R. Nemiroff 

 Attorneys for Defendants Russell E Burns, Dan 

Reding, Carl Goff, Pete Figueiredo, and Steve 

Ingersoll 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 6
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 4 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

Dated: June 23, 2015 COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP 

 By: /s/ Dwayne McKenzie 

 Dwayne McKenzie 

 Attorneys for Defendants Kevin J. Albanese, F.G. 

Crosthwaite, Thomas Holsman, John M. Humber, 

Richard Piombo 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 6
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 5 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

ECF CERTIFICATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filing attorney attests that he has obtained 

concurrence regarding the filing of this document from the signatories to the document. 

Dated: June 23, 2015 By: /s/ Lee A. Weiss 

Lee A. Weiss 

 lweiss@law111.com 

 BERNS WEISS LLP 

 20700 Ventura Blvd. Suite 140 

 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 

 Telephone: (818) 961-2000 

 Facsimile: (818) 999-1500 

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 6
Case No.: 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Page 6 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS THE THIRD THROUGH EIGHTH AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR 

RELIEF IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

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

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of counsel and for good cause shown, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Third through Eighth Claims for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) are dismissed by Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities, with

prejudice as to the Plaintiffs. 

2. The Third through Eighth Claims for Relief in the SAC are dismissed without

prejudice as to the absent putative class members. 

3. All Parties shall bear their own fees and costs with respect to the Third through 

Eighth Claims for Relief in the SAC. 

4. The Tenth Claim for Relief in the SAC is dismissed by Plaintiffs, in their 

individual capacities, without prejudice. 

5. The Tenth Claim for Relief in the SAC is dismissed without prejudice as to the 

absent putative class members. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________, 2015 __________________________________ 

 HON.	EDWARD	M.	CHEN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6/29

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 222 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 6