Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Habib
Defendant
James P. McKenna
Defendant
Virginia C. Moon
Counter Defendant
David H. Rush
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA C. MOON, on her own

behalf and on behalf of the

Peters Rush Habib & McKenna

401(k) Profit Sharing Plan,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID H. RUSH, MARK A. HABIB,

and JAMES P. MCKENNA, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

DAVID H. RUSH,

 Counter-claimant,

 v.

VIRGINIA C. MOON,

 Counter-defendant.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD

ORDER

The following motions have been noticed for hearing on April

30, 2012: Plaintiff Virginia C. Moon’s (“Moon”) motion to dismiss

Defendant David H. Rush’s (“Rush”) state counter-claims; and Rush’s

counter-motion in which Rush seeks dismissal of Moon’s complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, summary

judgment on Moon’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)

claims. Rush argues in his counter-motion that Moon “does not have

statutory standing to bring [her ERISA] claims[,]” because the

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 29 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 2
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

California Superior Court in the County of Butte entered an order on

March 13, 2012 holding that Moon does not have a qualified domestic

relations order. (Def.’s Counter-Mot. 1:26-2:8.)

Since Moon alleges federal subject matter jurisdiction is

based on her ERISA claims, and Rush’s counter-motion challenges Moon’s

standing to litigate her ERISA claims and seeks in the alternative

summary judgment on those claims, Rush’s motion will be heard and

decided before the Court decides whether to resolve issues presented in

Moon’s motions. 

Therefore, the hearing scheduled for April 30, 2012 is

vacated. The hearing on Rush’s motions (ECF No. 24) is rescheduled to

commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 4, 2012, and the hearing on Moon’s

dismissal motion (ECF No. 19) is rescheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on

for July 16, 2012.

Dated: April 18, 2012

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 29 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 2