Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00857/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00857-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Trustees of IBEW Local Union No. 100 Pension Trust Fund
Plaintiff
Servi-Tech Controls, Inc.
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF IBEW LOCAL

UNION NO. 100 PENSION TRUST

FUND, IBEW LOCAL UNION NO. 100

HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND,

JOINT ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY

TRAINING TRUST FUND, NATIONAL

ELECTRICAL BENEFIT FUND, IBEW

LOCAL UNION NO. 100 VACATION

FUND AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

THE IBEW DISTRICT NO. 9 PENSION

PLAN TRUST FUND,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SERVI-TECH CONTROLS, INC., a

California corporation,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0857 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 9/20/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 10/5/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 10/30/07

Settlement Conference Date:

9/25/07 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 1/14/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 2/19/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (CT-8 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

November 15, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Bennett & Sharpe, Inc., by Thomas M. Sharpe, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Littler Mendelson by Spencer H. Hipp, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendant. 

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 11
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiffs contend that this action is brought pursuant

to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 and the Federal

Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs are and were the Plan

Administrators of Employee Benefit Plans within the meaning of

the Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”) under 29 U.S.C.

§ 1002 and are and were the named fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C.

§§ 1002 and 1132(b). Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has

breached a collective bargaining agreement, which Plaintiffs

contend incorporates various Trust Agreements and thereby binding

Defendant to the terms of such Trust Agreements, by failing to

make contributions to Plaintiffs on behalf of certain employees

of Defendant whose work Plaintiffs contend was covered by a

collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks the

payment of those claimed contributions for the period of December

2001 to the present, along with interest, liquidated damages,

costs and attorneys fees. Plaintiffs’ Complaint also seeks to

compel an accounting in order to determine the amount of those

alleged contributions. Plaintiffs contend that the Trust

Agreements obligate Defendant to make contributions to Plaintiffs

for all persons who perform work covered by the collective

bargaining agreement.

2. Defendant contends that the employees on whose behalf

Plaintiffs seek contributions, have never been represented by

IBEW Local 100. Defendant further contends that the work

performed by its employees which is the focus of Plaintiffs’

lawsuit, is not and has never been work covered by any collective

bargaining agreement by which Defendant was or is bound. 

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 11
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

Defendant also seeks to recover its costs, disbursements,

expenses and attorneys’ fees in this lawsuit.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction pursuant to the

Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”).

2. Defendant is a California corporation with

corporate offices located in Fresno, California. 

3. Defendant is an HVAC (heating, ventilating and air

conditioning) control systems contractor involved in the design

and installation of large HVAC control systems.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Plaintiffs are advised that Defendant contests the

assertion that the work in question was covered by any collective

bargaining agreement by which Defendant may be bound.

2. Defendant is advised that Plaintiffs contest the

assertion that the HVAC control systems engineers/programmers and

the warehousemen employed by Defendant have never been

represented by IBEW Local 100.

3. Whether the work performed by Defendant’s HVAC

control system engineer/programmer employees is, or ever was,

work covered by any collective bargaining agreement by which

Defendant may be bound.

4. Whether the work of the warehousemen employed by

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 11
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

Defendant is, or ever was, work covered by any collective

bargaining agreement by which Defendant may be bound.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of

California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, if the Court has jurisdiction.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether this action arises under the Labor

Management Relations Act of 1947 (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) and

§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the Federal Declaratory Judgment

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, et seq.

2. Whether primary exclusive jurisdiction rests with

the National Labor Relations Board.

3. Whether Defendant has breached any collective

bargaining agreement by which it may be bound.

4. Whether Defendant is liable for any claimed

contributions or damages.

5. Whether any or all of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages

as requested in the prayer for relief are recoverable.

6. Whether Plaintiffs or Defendant are entitled to an

award of attorneys’ fees under any of the theories alleged in the

Complaint and Answer.

7. Whether the UC petition filed by Defendant before

the National Labor Relations Board (case number 32-UC-416) is a

“related matter,” and specifically whether that petition raises

issues pertinent to this litigation.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 11
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

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before September 20, 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before July 20, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before August

20, 2007. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 11
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

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before October 5, 2007,

and heard on November 2, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than October 30, 2007, and will be heard on

December 3, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. January 14, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 6 of 11
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

7

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. February 19, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a non-jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 8 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

5. The parties are interested in voluntary dispute

resolution. They will contact the Courtroom Deputy and he will

provide the appropriate stipulation for VDR when the parties are

ready. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for September 25,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 7 of 11
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

8

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 8 of 11
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

9

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties agree that the issues of liability and

damages, if any, shall be tried in two phases. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. Defendant has filed a Unit Clarification Petition with

Region 32 of the National Labor Relations Board (Case No. 32-UC416) requesting that any bargaining unit of Defendant

specifically exclude, among others, engineering control systems

technicians and programmers, clerical staff, warehousemen, shop

persons and others, many of whom are the subject of Plaintiffs’

present Federal District Court lawsuit. Defendant has this week

received a letter from IBEW Local 100's counsel confirming that

the employees who are the subject of the present lawsuit are

excluded from the bargaining unit. Defendant asserts that this

is a related matter. Defendant contends that since the right of

the Plaintiff Trust Funds cannot be any greater than the right of

IBEW Local 100 under any collective bargaining agreement, the

Plaintiff Trust Funds have no basis to proceed and must withdraw

the present lawsuit. Plaintiff disputes that this is a “related

matter” and contends that the question presented in the instant

litigation goes to the nature of the work actually performed by

employees of Defendant, not the job titles and job descriptions

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 9 of 11
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

10

of said employees, whatever such titles and job descriptions be. 

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 10 of 11
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

11

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00857-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 11 of 11