JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No.: 09-2458 SC 

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

PHILIP M. MILLER (SBN 87877) 

MICHELLE L. SICULA (SBN 160598) 

SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 882-7900 

(415) 882-9287 – Facsimile 

pmiller@sjlawcorp.com 

kmcculloch@sjlawcorp.com 

msicula@sjlawcorp.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

ROBERT G. HULTENG, Bar No. 071293 

JOSHUA J. CLIFFE, Bar No. 215390 

VINCENT J. MERSICH, Bar No. 259813 

LITTLER MENDELSON 

A Professional Corporation 

650 California Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 

Telephone: 415.433.1940 

Attorneys for Defendant Stanford European 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION 

TRUST FUND, JAMES H. BENO, Trustee, 

BILL BRUNELLI,, Trustee, STEPHEN J. 

MACK, Trustee, MARK HOLLIBUSH, 

Trustee, CHRIS CHRISTOPHERSEN, Trustee, 

DON CROSATTO, Trustee, GEORGE HALL, 

JR., Trustee, CHARLES J. DI BARI, Trustee, 

RON NELSON, Trustee, and JAMES V. 

CANTERBURY, Trustee, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STANFORD EUROPEAN, INC., dba 

STANFORD BMW, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: C 09-02548 SC 

UPDATED JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

DATE: April 9, 2010 

TIME: 10:00 A.M. 

JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti 

 COURTROOM 1 

 Seventeenth Floor 

 450 Golden Gate Ave., 

 San Francisco, CA 

Plaintiffs, Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund and its Board of Trustees, jointly 

with Defendant Stanford European (hereafter “Stanford”) in the above-entitled action submit this 

Updated Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it 

as its Case Management Order in this case. 

Case 3:09-cv-02548-SC Document 25 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No.: 09-2458 SC 

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

At the last case management conference on September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs and Defendant 

asked the Court to direct the case to mediation. On December 9, 2009, the parties participated in a 

mediation with mediator Kim Zeldin. With the help of the mediator, the parties determined that 

they would need to exchange additional information in order to resolve this matter. Ms. Zeldin 

offered to assist the parties further following the exchange. 

On December 16, 2009, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a letter requesting documents and 

identifying subject areas about which plaintiffs needed further information. Due to the intervening 

holidays and the temporary unavailability of Defendant’s owners and accountant, Defendant did 

not respond to Plaintiffs’ December 16th letter until March 10, 2010 when Defendant’s counsel 

sent an e-mail containing some of the requested information. On March 12, 2010, Defendant 

informally produced documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ December 16th letter. 

Plaintiffs are in the process of reviewing the documents provided by Defendant on March 

12th. Following review, the parties intend to engage in an additional mediation with Ms. Zeldin. 

The parties jointly request that the Court set a case management conference 90 days out to 

allow time for the parties to secure a spot on Ms. Zeldin’s calendar and proceed with settlement 

discussions which are likely to be productive. Counsel for plaintiffs contacted Ms. Zeldin’s office 

on March 11th and 19th to determine her availability for the months of April and May 2010. On 

March 26, 2010, the mediator’s office provided the parties with Ms. Zeldin’s availability for April 

and May 2010. Counsel will promptly identify those dates on which all necessary client 

representatives will be available. 

The Court previously permitted an extension of 90 days for the parties to engage in this 

process. See Clerk’s Notice, filed February 2, 2010. However, more time than was expected was 

required to obtain the information sought in Plaintiffs’ December 16th letter. Accordingly, the 

parties ask the Court to grant an additional extension of 90 days in order to increase the chance of 

settlement. Defendant contends that there are few, if any, assets available to satisfy Plaintiffs’ 

claims. The parties are interested in settlement and believe that a further extension of time may 

bear fruit and conserve the resources of the parties and the Court. 

Case 3:09-cv-02548-SC Document 25 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No.: 09-2458 SC 

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: March 26, 2010 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 

 By: /s/ 

 Michelle L. Sicula 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: March 26, 2010 LITTLER MENDELSON 

 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 

 By: /s/ 

 Joshua Cliffe 

 Attorney for Defendant Stanford European 

IT IS SO ORDERED that the Case Management Conference is continued to July 9, 2010 at 

10:00 a.m. 

Dated: SAMUEL CONTI 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-02548-SC Document 25 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3