Opinion
CASE NO. CV 101039RS
11-16-2011
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v, ASKO APPLIANCES, INC., and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants, ASKO APPLIANCES, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ASKO CYLINDA A.B., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ELTEK S.p.A., Third-Party Defendants.
GEORGE D. YARON (SBN 96246) JAMES I. SILVERSTEIN (SBN 143643) YARON & ASSOCIATES THOMAS J. MARONEY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ROSS HERMAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) MARONEY O'CONNOR LLP Attorneys for Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, and Counter-Defendant ASKO APPLIANCES, INC.
GEORGE D. YARON (SBN 96246)
JAMES I. SILVERSTEIN (SBN 143643)
YARON & ASSOCIATES
THOMAS J. MARONEY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
ROSS HERMAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
MARONEY O'CONNOR LLP
Attorneys for Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, and Counter-Defendant
ASKO APPLIANCES, INC.
STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant ASKO APPLIANCES, INC. ("Asko"), and Third-Party Defendant and Counter-Claimant ELTEK S.p.A. ("Eltek") (collectively "Parties"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, pursuant to Local Rule 6-l(a), as follows:
WHEREAS, this is an insurance subrogation action arising out of a residential fire on March 6, 2007. The residence is located at 208 Fairmont St., San Francisco, CA, and is reportedly owned by Gail Sabin. The alleged cause of the fee is an Asko dishwasher, model 1385 ("subject dishwasher"), Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") sought reimbursement of insurance proceeds, in the amount of $166,494.78, it allegedly paid to Gail Sabin, its insured, from. Asko, the distributor of the subject dishwasher
WHEREAS, Asko filed a Third-Party Complaint against, among others, Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell"), and Eltek S.p.A. ("Eltek"). Honeywell manufactured the door latch microswitch used in the subject dishwasher. After conducting fact and expert discovery, Asko determined that the Honeywell microswitch was not at fault in the instant action, and moved to voluntarily dismiss Honeywell. On July 18, 2011, the Court granted Asko" s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Honeywell.
WHEREAS, Eltek manufactured a waxmotor, model no. 100332.01, a component part hi the subject dishwasher. Asko contends that a catastrophic failure of the Eltek waxmotor caused the subject fire. Eltek denies that the waxmotor caused the fire.
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the Parties and Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate'*) participated in a Mandatory Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Dorma M. Ryu. Asko settled with Allstate. Thus, the only remaining claims are between Asko and Eltek. Asko and Eltek are attempting to resolve their claims against each other in this action, and other actions arising out of Asko dishwashers that allegedly caught fire. Eltek has requested that Asko provide it with certain documentation about pending claims against Asko that might involve Eltek. Asko is in the process of obtaining that information. Eltek's position is that it needs to receive this' information regarding potential claims against Eltek before it can discuss globally resolving a number of claims, including the instant action.
WHEREAS, there are two other currently pending Federal District Court cases involving Eltek and Asko: (1) Swenton, el al. v. Asko Appliances, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No. 3:09-cv-01208 ("Swenton");and (2) Automobile Inc, Co. of Hartford, CT. a/s/o My Weinstein and Ellyne Weinstein v. Asko Appliances, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:09~cv~05017 (“Weinstein"). In addition, there is a case pending in Montreal, Canada involving the Parties.
WHEREAS, the instant action is set for trial on September 10,2012.
WHEREAS, the Parties have also been involved in a discovery dispute regarding the deposition of Eltek's Person(s) Most Knowledgeable ("PMK'), (Eltek has designated an individual that resides in Italy as its PMK.) Magistrate Judge Laurel Beelerhas set a hearing for November 17th to resolve this dispute.
WHEREAS, the current deadline (a) for completion of non-expert discovery, and (b) for disclosure of expert reports intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party's expert, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(aX2)(C)(ii) ("Rebuttal Expert Disclosure"), is November 18, 2011.
WHEREAS, the remaining non-expert discovery is comprised of the deposition of Eltek's PMK and the deposition of Asko's PMK. The Parties are working out a schedule to complete this discovery by December 18, 2011, in the event that they are unable to resolve the instant lawsuit.
THEREFORE the Parties stipulate that the deadline (a) for completion of non-expert discovery, and (b) for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure is continued 3 0 days to December 18,2011.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
YARON & ASSOCIATES
GEORGE D. YARON
JAMES SILVERSTEIN
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Asko Appliances, Inc.
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
PAUL L. KASSIRER
STEVE GETZOFF
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant/Counter
Claimant
Eltek, S.p.A.
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RICHARD SEEBORG