From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equipment Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 6, 2013
2:11-cv-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Mark S. Newman, Esq., SBN 107012, BORTON PETRINI, LLP, Sacramento, California, Rancho Cordova, California Attorneys for Defendant Cashman Equipment Company.

COZEN O'CONNOR, Kevin D. Bush, Attorneys for Plaintiff, American Home Assurance Company.

PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES, James R. Pagliero, Attorneys for Defendant, Miratech Corporation.


STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, defendant CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY and defendant MIRATECH CORPORATION, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court to enter a stipulated order amending the pre-trial scheduling order, as follows:

1. The trial date in this matter is July 31, 2014. That is the third trial date in this matter and was changed previously due to change of plaintiffs' counsel, need for extensive discovery due to the complicated nature of the case involving damages of $15 million, and efforts to settle the matter through negotiations. The parties request that the trial date and all pre-trial dates be extended approximately three months to allow the parties additional time to conduct mediation and settlement discussions, including expert discovery in this complicated, multi-million dollar case.

2. Since the time of the initial status conference the parties were diligently involved in conducting extensive written discovery. As a result of that discovery, certain persons were identified who the parties intended to depose. Some of these depositions have been completed and it has led parties to discuss settlement much earlier than anticipated. Plaintiff's counsel has recently sent a written demand, which both defendants are considering at the moment. All parties have agreed to retain Judge Gilbert as the mediator and are attempting to schedule mediation for October 2013. In light of these ongoing settlement discussions all parties intend to reschedule the trial date and other discovery deadlines for another three months.

3. Parties have been recently in contact with HUG Engineering AG (hereinafter referred as "HUG") who was the manufacturer of the DPF that allegedly caught fire and resulted in filing of the instant complaint. It is anticipated that one of the parties will file a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against HUG. It is also anticipated that HUG will participate in the upcoming mediation. In light of the addition of new party and to give it sufficient time to prepare for the matter, all parties intend to reschedule the trial date and other discovery deadlines for another three months.

4. Additionally, the disclosure of expert witness and reports is currently due on October 31, 2013, and all parties wish not to spend their time and financial resources at this time on their experts but rather use it to settle the matter through negotiations.

5. This is a complicated case involving alleged damages of over $15,000,000 and involving claims and defenses involving negligence, products liability, indemnity and premises liability.

6. The parties jointly submit this stipulation and request to revise the existing pre-trial schedule order for the dual purposes of: (a) allowing the parties the time to resolve the matter amicably through settlement negotiations, and (b) prevent the expenditure by all parties on their experts and use those resources to resolve the matter through settlement.

7. Based on the foregoing, all parties strongly urge the court to extend the current deadlines set out in the pre-trial scheduling order. The parties jointly and unanimously move that the following proposed amended pre-trial scheduling order submitted by all parties be entered by the court.

8. This stipulation is not made for the purposes of delay, but so that the parties have sufficient time to engage in settlement discussions. All parties unanimously agree that a reasonable extension is necessary based on the foregoing.

ITEM CURRENT REVISED DATE DATE Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Reports 10/31/13 01/31/14 Discovery Completion Deadline 01/31/14 03/31/14 Non-Discovery Motion Filing Deadline 02/20/14 05/20/14 Final Pretrial Conference 05/12/14 at 2:00 08/18/14 at 2:00 p.m. p.m. Trial of Matter 07/29/14 at 9:00 10/28/14 at 9:00 a.m. a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED.


Summaries of

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equipment Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 6, 2013
2:11-cv-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2013)
Case details for

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equipment Co.

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Plaintiff, v…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Sep 6, 2013

Citations

2:11-cv-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2013)