Opinion
2:09-cv-0771 JAM-CKD
01-12-2012
BANK OF SACRAMENTO, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, Defendant.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SAMUEL R. MILLER Attorneys for Defendant, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY BOUTIN JONES, INC. MICHAEL E. CHASE Attorneys for Plaintiff, BANK OF SACRAMENTO
Samuel R. Miller (SBN 066871)
Nicole M. Ryan (SBN 175980)
Ryan M. Sandrock (SBN 251781)
Jaime A. Bartlett (SBN 251825)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME
TO ANSWER SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
The Honorable John A. Mendez
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum Decision vacating the District Court's Order dismissing Plaintiff Bank of Sacramento's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") and remanding the case for further proceedings in the District Court; and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiff Bank of Sacramento ("the Bank") and Defendant Stewart Title Guaranty Company ("STG") are in the process of scheduling a mediation in an effort to try to resolve this matter; and
WHEREAS, both the Bank and STG believe that it would serve the interest of justice and court efficiency to defer further proceedings in the District Court for a short time, to see if the matter can be resolved;
THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by the Bank and STG, through their respective counsel of record, as follows:
1) STG shall have until March 13, 2012 to answer the SAC;
2) The parties shall report to the Court whether the effort to resolve the matter has been successful on or before March 13, 2012;
3) If the matter is not resolved, the parties will submit a joint Status Report on or before March 20, 2012, which will include proposed dates for a fact discovery cut-off; disclosure of expert reports and completion of expert depositions; the filing of dispositive motions; the date for a final pre-trial conference; an estimated trial time; and a proposed trial date. To the extent not already covered, the joint Status Report will also address the issues described in this Court's "Order Requiring Joint Status Report", filed on March 24, 2009 (Dkt. No. 10).
4) If the Court deems it appropriate after receiving the joint Status Report, it can set a Status Conference.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
____________________
SAMUEL R. MILLER
Attorneys for Defendant,
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
BOUTIN JONES, INC.
____________________
MICHAEL E. CHASE
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
BANK OF SACRAMENTO
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that I have on file written permission to sign this joint motion from all parties whose signatures are indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
____________________
SAMUEL R. MILLER
Attorneys for Defendant,
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE