Opinion
Case No. 2:12-CV-03041-LKK-GGH
02-20-2013
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; AIU HOLDINGS, INC., a New York corporation; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, AN Illinois corporation, AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Georgia corporation; AMERICAN SAFETY INDEMNITY COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation; ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation; ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a North Dakota Corporation; AXIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE, a Connecticut corporation; BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS, INC. dba PROBUILDERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a District of Columbia corporation; CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; CLAREMONT LIABILITY INSURANCE, a California corporation; CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY a Delaware corporation; FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, a California; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation; FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Missouri corporation; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a New Hampshire corporation; GREENWHICH INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation; INTERSTATE FIRE & casualty company, an Illinois corporation; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; LIBERTY MUTUAL, a Massachusetts corporation; MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation; NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a New York corporation; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, a Kentucky corporation; UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; VALIANT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY a New York corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC A. Eric Aguilera, Esq. Daniel Eli, Esq. Angela Martin, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
Hon. Lawrence Karlton
ORDER ON EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
MARCH 4, 2013 STATUS
CONFERENCE AND ALL
ATTENDANT DATES FOR SIXTY
(60) DAYS
COMPLAINT FILED: 12/18/12
ORDER
Good cause having been shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter be continued from March 4, 2013 to May 13, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. and that all attendant dates including the Rule 26(a) initial disclosure deadline be calculated from the new Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference date.
_______________
LAWRENCE K. KARTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE AGUILERA LAW GROUP, APLC
By: _______________
A. Eric Aguilera, Esq.
Daniel Eli, Esq.
Angela Martin, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ST. PAUL FIRE
AND MARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY and ST. PAUL MERCURY
INSURANCE COMPANY
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 700 S. Flower St., Ste. 3350, Los Angeles, California 90017. On February 20, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as:
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 4, 2013 STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL ATTENDANT DATES FOR SIXTY (60) DAYS on the interested parties in this action.
[ ] BY U.S. MAIL
() *I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. [ ] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [×] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA ECF I transmitted a true copy of the above entitled document(s) to CM/ECF for filing and service on all parties. [ ] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [×] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on February 20, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
_______________
Judy Jaramillo