From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equip. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Apr 19, 2012
No. 2:11-CV-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-CV-01814-WBS-DAD

04-19-2012

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Plaintiff, v. CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Nevada corporation; MIRATECH CORPORATION, an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants.

JAMES R. PAGLIERO, SBN 095898 GABRIEL G. BALDWIN, SBN 234241 PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant Miratech Corporation


JAMES R. PAGLIERO, SBN 095898

GABRIEL G. BALDWIN, SBN 234241

PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES

A Professional Corporation

Attorneys for Defendant

Miratech Corporation

STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST

FOR ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL

SCHEDULING ORDER

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

1. At that time the pre-trial scheduling order was entered, discovery was in its very early stages.

2. Since that time, the parties have produced voluminous records and begun initial written discovery. However, the parties are still in the process of exchanging and responding to written discovery. Given the natures of the claims, the parties conclude that depositions and further discovery will be required to clarify the parties' positions on key claims and defenses to continue to move this case towards resolution by settlement or trial.

3. Parties and material witnesses are located in multiple states including California, Oklahoma and Nevada, and possibly others, including Switzerland. It will therefore require additional time to coordinate and complete material and key witness discovery. Additionally, depositions of numerous parties and witnesses are expected and the parties are still coordinating with regard to both dates and locations. The nature, scope and complexity of the issues in this case, combined with the widespread locations of percipient parties and witnesses, the thousands of pages of relevant documents and files, and the significant number of parties and witnesses to be deposed underscore the need for a revision of the pre-trial scheduling order deadlines.

4. The parties jointly submit this stipulation and request to revise the existing pre-trial scheduling order for the dual purposes of: (a) allowing the parties to time to continue and complete investigation and discovery, with an emphasis on the key depositions which could facilitate resolution of the case; and (b) permitting the parties to develop a balanced plan for investigation, discovery and depositions (including expert discovery) such that all parties will be prepared for trial, in the event that the case does not resolve, and the parties best efforts notwithstanding.

5. Based on the foregoing, all parties strongly urge the Court to extend the current deadliness 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.

6. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done. All parties unanimously agree that a reasonable extension is necessary based upon the foregoing.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ITEM ¦CURRENT DATE ¦REVISED DATE ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and ¦05/15/12 ¦11/30/12 ¦ ¦Reports ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Discovery Completion Deadline ¦10/31/12 ¦02/15/13 ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Non-Discovery Motion filing Deadline (No¦03/18/13 ¦03/18/13 ¦ ¦change) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Final Pretrial Conference ¦05/28/13 at 2:00 ¦05/28/13 at 2:00 ¦ ¦ ¦p.m. ¦p.m. ¦ ¦(No change) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Trial of Matter (No change) ¦07/30/13 at 9:00 ¦07/30/13 at 9:00 ¦ ¦ ¦a.m. ¦a.m. ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES

A Professional Corporation

_________________________

JAMES R. PAGLIERO

Attorneys for defendant

Miratech Corporation

COZEN O'CONNOR

_________________________

GERARD P. HARNEY

Attorneys for plaintiff

American Home Assurance Company

BORTON PETRINI, LLP

_________________________

MANISH PARIKH

Attorneys for defendant

Cashman Equipment Company

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED.

_________________________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equip. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Apr 19, 2012
No. 2:11-CV-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)
Case details for

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cashman Equip. Co.

Case Details

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

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Date published: Apr 19, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-CV-01814-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)