# Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Smith-Emery Company

> District Court, C.D. California · April 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979596

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** April 11, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979596

## Opinion text

Case 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFM Document 115 Filed 04/11/22 Pagel1of6 Page ID #:1502
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFMx Date April 11, 2022
Title Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust et al v. Smith-Emery
Company

Ss ee eee CHRISTINA A_SNYDER
Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Marija Decker John Worden
Christopher Brown
Andrew Zepeda
James Partridge, Pro Se
Proceedings: SMITH-EMERY’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
MASTER PURSUANT TO RULE 53 (Dkt. 108, filed on March 8,
2022)
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
This case is the latest iteration of a labor dispute between plaintiff trustees
(“Trustees”) that administer several trusts and funds (“Trust Funds”) that provide benefits
to members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12
(“Local 12”), on the one hand, and Smith-Emery Company (“Smith-Emery”), a
California corporation that performs construction tests and inspections, on the other. In
broad terms, the dispute concerns allegations that Smith-Emery has failed, over the
course of many years, to make payments into certain trusts for the benefit of Local 12
members employed by Smith-Emery, which the Trustees allege is required by labor
agreements between Smith-Emery (or its bargaining agents) and Local 12.
Trustees initiated this latest action on May 9, 2019, by filing a complaint against
Smith-Emery in this Court. See Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). The complaint states a single claim
for relief for breach of collective bargaining agreements, and violation of the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Compl. §[ 14-28. Smith-Emery filed an
answer on July 15, 2019, asserting 13 affirmative defenses, and attached a
countercomplaint stating a single claim for relief, a request for a declaration pursuant to
the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the Trustees’ claims “to recover
pension, health and welfare contributions and other employee benefits under [Smith-

CV-349 (01/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 6

Case 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFM Document 115 Filed 04/11/22 Page2of6 Page ID #:1503
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFMx Date April 11, 2022
Title Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust et al v. Smith-Emery
Company
Emery’s] labor contracts with [Local 12]” are foreclosed by (1) “state public safety laws
regulating the building and construction industry” (the “Illegality Defense’), and (2)
Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 ULS.C. §
186 (the “LMRA Defense”). Dkt. 11 (“Countercl.”). The countercomplaint adds Smith-
Emery’s principal, James E. Partridge (“Partridge’’), as a counterclaimant, and, in
addition to plaintiffs, lists three California state agencies—the California Division of the
State Architect (“DSA”), the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (“OSHPD”), and the California Building Standards Commission (“BSC”)
(collectively, the “State Agencies” or “the State”)—as counterdefendants. Countercl. 4]
5-12.
On September 20, 2019, the State Agencies filed a motion dismiss the
counterclaim as it applied to them. Dkt. 36. That same day, the Trustees filed a motion
to dismiss the counterclaim as it applied to them, as well as a motion to strike all of the
13 affirmative defenses asserted by Smith-Emery’s Answer. Dkt. 37. On October 28,
2019, the Court denied the Trustees’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), granted the Trustees’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) without leave to amend, denied the Trustees’ motion to strike
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and granted the State Agencies’
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) without leave to
amend. Dkt. 47.
Subsequently, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Alexander M.
MacKinnon with regard to several discovery disputes, and the Court modified its
scheduling order four times pursuant to the parties’ stipulations. See Dkts. 51, 55, 67, 72,
86, 88, 91. On October 19, 2021, the Trustees moved for an ex parte order “modifying
the Court’s Scheduling Order so that Trustees can complete discovery and file a motion
for summary judgment.” Dkt. 92. The Trustees contended that “Smith-Emery [has]
failed to produce all responsive documents.” Dkt. 93. On October 27, 2021, the Court
granted Trustees’ unopposed ex parte application to modify the Court’s scheduling order.
Dkt. 96.
On October 19, 2021, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (“MSK’”), former counsel
for Smith-Emery, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, claiming that “there has been
a[n] irreparable breakdown in the attorney client relationship.” Dkt. 95 at 4. On

CV-549 (01/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 6

Case 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFM Document 115 Filed 04/11/22 Page3of6 Page ID #:1504
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘O’
Case No. 2:19-cv-04058-CAS-AFMx Date April 11, 2022
Title Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust et al v. Smith-Emery
Company
November 22, 2021, the Court granted MSK’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Smith-
Emery. Dkts. 100-101. On January 14, 2022, John S. Worden of Venable LLP appeared
as counsel for Smith-Emery. Dkt. 103.
On March 8, 2022, Smith-Emery filed a motion to appoint special master pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ P. 53. Dkt. 108 (“Mot.”). On March 21, 2022, the Trustees filed their
opposition. Dkt. 112 (“Opp.”). Smith-Emery replied on March 28, 2022. Dkt. 113
(“Reply”).
The Court held a hearing on April 11, 2022. Having carefully considered the
parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 governs the appointment of special masters. Special masters
may be appointed only to “(A) perform duties consented to by the parties; (B) hold trial
proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided without a
jury if appointment is warranted by: (1) some exceptional condition; or (11) the need to
perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of damages; or (C) address
pretrial and post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an
available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a).
“ 2B
Initials of Preparer CMJ

CV-549 (01/18) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 6 of 6

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979596. Public record. Not legal advice.