Ace American Insurance Company v. Tech Logistics Corporation, et al.

Filing 47

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY AND REVISED CASE SCHEDULE 46 Stipulation and Proposed Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/21/2010. (Yu, L) Modified on 10/21/2010 (Yu, L).

Ace American Insurance Company v. Tech Logistics Corporation, et al.

Doc. 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SF/1869130v1

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP BRUCE D. CELEBREZZE Bar No. 102181 MARK J. HANCOCK Bar No. 160662 ANDREW J. KING Bar No. 253962 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] One Market Plaza Steuart Tower, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. KIEHLMEIER JOHN C. KIEHLMEIER Bar No. 124083 P.O. Box 1144 Corona del Mar, California 92625 Telephone: [phone] PETRIE, DORFMEIER & MORRIS, LLP SEAN T. O'ROURKE, Bar No. 199420 2014 Tulare Street, Suite 830 Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants TECH LOGISTICS CORPORATION, d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS SERVICES and d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS; AGRICOMM EXPRESS, INC.; TRUCKING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; ELISEO ONTIVEROS VALDEZ. WILKINS, DROLSHAGEN & CZESHINSKI LLP JAMES H. WILKINS Bar No. 116364 6785 N. Willow Ave. Fresno, CA 93710 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants CONCEPCION GARCIA, and QUETZAL GARCIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. TECH LOGISTICS CORPORATION, d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS SERVICES and d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS, a Texas Corporation; AGRI-COMM EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation; TRUCKING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation; ELISEO ONTIVEROS VALDEZ, an individual; CONCEPCION GARCIA, an individual; and QUETZAL GARCIA, a minor child, Defendants. __________________________________ And Related Counterclaim. CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY AND REVISED CASE SCHEDULE (ECF NOS. 35 & 36) JUDGE: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii MAG. JUDGE: Hon. Michael J. Seng

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION & ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY & REVISED CASE SCHEDULE ockets.Justia.com D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SF/1869130v1

TO THE COURT, AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: THIS STIPULATION is entered into by and between plaintiff, ACE American Insurance Company ("Plaintiff"), and defendants Tech Logistics Corporation, d/b/a Systems Logistics Services and d/b/a Systems Logistics, a Texas Corporation; Agri-Comm Express, Inc., a California Corporation; Trucking Equipment Company, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation; Eliseo Ontiveros Valdez, an individual, Concepcion Garcia, an individual; and Quetzal Garcia, a minor child, ("Defendants"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties," by and through their attorneys of record and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 143. WHEREAS, on September 10, 2010, counsel for defendants Tech Logistics Corporation ("TLC"), Trucking Equipment Company, Inc. ("TEC"), Agri-Comm Express, Inc., and Eliseo Valdez (collectively "the TLC defendants") informed counsel for Plaintiff, for the first time, that TLC and TEC were not in good standing in the State of California. WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, the TLC defendants filed an ex parte motion to modify the case scheduling order and for a stay of discovery to allow for corporate revivor. WHEREAS, in their motion, the TLC defendants sought a stay of all discovery, and a continuance of all dates on the case schedule, including the trial itself, in order to allow TLC (but not TEC) time to seek to revive its corporate status from the current "suspended" state. WHEREAS, on September 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion, and argued that the relief sought by TLC was overbroad and that the only changes which should be made to the case schedule were those necessary to protect Plaintiff's interests as a result of TLC's failure to remain in good standing with the Secretary of State. WHEREAS, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion on October 1, 2010 and continued the hearing to October 8, 2010. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the October 8, 2010 hearing, the Court ordered a 60-day stay of all proceedings in order for TLC to complete its corporate revivor in California. WHEREAS, the 60-day stay of all proceedings went into effect on October 8, 2010 and will end on December 7, 2010. 2
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION & ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY & REVISED CASE SCHEDULE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SF/1869130v1

WHEREAS, at the October 8, 2010 hearing, the Court directed counsel for the Parties to stipulate to a new case schedule within 10 days. WHEREAS, the Parties, through their respective counsel, have met and conferred and have agreed to a revised case schedule as set forth below. WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiff should not suffer prejudice as a result of the stay ordered by the court on October 8, 2010. To this end, the parties agree that the court should order that: (1) nothing in this stipulation will preclude Plaintiff from seeking such further scheduling relief as may be necessary in this case, including, for example, as a result of discovery issues that arose prior to the stay, or which may arise going forward; and (2) Plaintiff will not be precluded, due, for example, to the passage of time, from introducing any evidence or argument at a postponed trial that Plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to introduce at a trial held on July 12, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 143, the Parties jointly request and HEREBY STIPULATE that the case schedule shall be revised as follows: Original Date October 1, 2010 November 1, 2010 October 22, 2010 November 5, 2010 December 6, 2010 Revised Date December 17, 2010 January 7, 2011 January 14, 2011 January 28, 2011 February 28, 2011

Event Deadline for seeking leave to amend pleadings Non-expert discovery cutoff Expert witness disclosure deadline Supp. expert witness disclosure deadline Expert witness discovery cutoff Deadline for filing non-dispositive motions

December 14, 2010 March 8, 2011 April 20, 2011 May 2, 2011 June 17, 2011 July 13, 2011 September 13, 2011

Deadline for hearing on non dispositive motions January 26, 2011 Deadline for filing dispositive motions Deadline for hearing on dispositive motions Pretrial conference Trial 3 February 11, 2011 March, 28, 2011 May 18, 2011 July 12, 2011

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION & ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY & REVISED CASE SCHEDULE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SF/1869130v1

The parties also jointly request and HEREBY STIPULATE that Plaintiff not be precluded from seeking such further scheduling relief as may be necessary in this case, including, for example, as a result of discovery issues that arose prior to the stay, or which may arise going forward. Also, Plaintiff will not be precluded, due, for example, to the passage of time, from introducing any evidence or argument at a postponed trial that Plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled to introduce at a trial held on July 12, 2011. IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD: DATED: October __, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP By: /s/ Mark J. Hancock Mark J. Hancock Attorneys for Plaintiff ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

DATED: July ____, 2010

PETRIE, DORFMEIER & MORRIS, LLP By: /s/ Sean T. O'Rourke Sean T. O'Rourke Attorneys for Defendants TECH LOGISTICS CORPORATION, d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS SERVICES and d/b/a SYSTEMS LOGISTICS, a Texas Corporation; AGRI-COMM EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation; TRUCKING EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation; ELISEO ONTIVEROS VALDEZ, an individual.

/// /// /// /// /// 4
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION & ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY & REVISED CASE SCHEDULE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SF/1869130v1

DATED: October __, 2010

WILKINS, DROLSHAGEN & CZESHINSKI LLP By: /s/ James H. Wilkins James H. Wilkins Attorneys for Defendants CONCEPCION GARCIA, an individual; and QUETZAL GARCIA, a minor child ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS SO ORDERED. October 20, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng

U. S. Magistrate Judge

5
CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00520-AWI-MJS STIPULATION & ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY & REVISED CASE SCHEDULE