From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawker v. Bancinsure, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Dec 19, 2013
1:12-cv-01261-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)

Opinion

          EDWARD F. DONOHUE (SBN 112730), CHRISTOPHER J. BORDERS (SBN 135901), JOHN T. MENO (SBN 231238), HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant BANCINSURE, INC.

          Jonathan D. Joseph (SBN 90564), Jonathan M. Cohen (SBN 168207) JOSEPH AND COHEN, A P.C., San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          Patrick J. Richard (SBN 131046), James H. Vorhis (SBN 245034), NOSSAMAN LLP, San Francisco, CA, Joan M. Cotkin (SBN 70665), NOSSAMAN LLP Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for FEDERAL DEPOSIT, INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiffs as assignee of certain claims,


          STIPULATION AND THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

          STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs Thomas T. Hawker, John J. Incandela, Dave Kraechan, Edwin Jay Lee and Edward J. Rocha (collectively "Insureds"), plaintiff by assignment the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for County Bank (the "FDIC-R"), and Defendant BancInsure, Inc. ("BancInsure"), through their respective counsel of record, as follows:

1. This Court initially issued an Amended Scheduling Order (Docket no. 37) following a May 28, 2013 Scheduling Conference.

2. After the parties met-and-conferred regarding the most efficient and economic ways to manage this litigation, they submitted a stipulation to the Court requesting an Amended Scheduling Order. On August 29, 2013, this Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order (Docket No. 50) setting new dates and deadlines.

         3. In an effort to build additional time into the schedule to resolve discovery disputes, the parties submitted a stipulation to the Court requesting a Second Amended Scheduling Order. On November 14, 2013, this Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order (Docket No. 59) setting the current summary judgment dates and deadlines.

         4. The parties have continued to diligently pursue discovery related to the coverage issues since the issuance of the Second Amended Scheduling Order. However, the parties need additional time to take at least three depositions of witnesses that, based on scheduling conflicts, could not be completed by the due date of the opening summary judgment brief. In addition, the parties need additional time to exchange records and information regarding the completeness of the records produced or made available to date by each party.

         5. Accordingly, the parties agree that good cause exists to adopt a Third Amended Scheduling Order such that 1) certain contract interpretation issues may still be addressed early in the litigation and prior to the resolution of other issues that could either be rendered moot or otherwise impacted by the early resolution of coverage issues, and so that 2) that all discovery related to the contract interpretation issue may be completed before cross summary-judgment motions are completely briefed before this Court.

         6. The parties reiterate that an early resolution of the contract interpretation issues could substantially reduce costs and simplify the remaining issues to be resolved in the litigation irrespective of which party prevails on cross-summary-judgment motions planned at the completion of "Phase I" as described below. Thus, if the Insureds and the FDIC-R prevail against coverage defenses raised in response to the Second Count for Breach of Contract, Count IV for Reformation would potentially become moot as would defenses raised by BancInsure to such claims such as estoppel and statute of limitations. If BancInsure prevails as to coverage defenses raised in Response to Count II, Count III for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing would potentially become moot.

         7. The parties stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court issue a Third Amended Scheduling Order that amends the following dates and deadlines in this matter:

a. Phase I Discovery Completion: January 24, 2014

b. Phase I Motion Filing Deadline: January 31, 2014

c. Phase I Opposition Filing Deadline: February 21, 2014

d. Phase I Reply Filing Deadline: March 5, 2014

c. Phase I Motion Hearing: March 12, 2014

d. Further Case Management Conference: March 28, 2014

8. The parties stipulate that the trial date will remain October 6, 2014. The parties further stipulate that neither will contest the other's request for a continuance of the current trial date of up to 60 days.

         9. The parties further stipulate and agree to engage in a formal alternative dispute resolution process, to be completed within 90 days of the Court's ruling on the Phase I motions.

         SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hawker v. Bancinsure, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Dec 19, 2013
1:12-cv-01261-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Hawker v. Bancinsure, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS T. HAWKER; JOHN J. INCANDELA; DAVE KRAECHAN; EDWIN JAY LEE; EDWARD…

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2013

Citations

1:12-cv-01261-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013)