West Pacific Electric Company Corporation v. Dragados/Flatiron, et al.

Filing 81

ORDER REGARDING JOINT APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 25 PAGES signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on October 15, 2019. (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT E. COYLE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WEST PACIFIC ELECTRIC
COMPANY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRAGADOS/FLATIRON, a joint
venture; LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Massachusetts corporation;
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT
COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a
Maryland corporation; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York
corporation; THE CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation; XL
SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
a Pennsylvania corporation;
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York
corporation; NATIONAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, a
Nebraska corporation; TRAVELERS
CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Connecticut corporation; FEDERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation,

CASE NO: 1:18-CV-00166-LJO-BAM
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BRIEF IN EXCESS OF 25 PAGES
Assigned to:
Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill, Courtroom 4
Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe, Courtroom 8
Complaint Filed: January 30, 2018
Trial Date:
March 17, 2020

Defendants.
1:18-CV-00166-LJO-BAM

1

For good cause appearing, the parties’ Joint Application for Leave to File

2

Brief in Excess of 25 Pages is hereby GRANTED pursuant to Rule 2 of the Local

3

Courtroom Rules of Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. Defendant Dragados/Flatiron

4

Joint Venture may file a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment, or

5

in the alternative partial summary judgment, not to exceed 40 pages. Plaintiff

6

West Pacific Electric Company may file a reply brief in opposition to

7

Dragados/Flatiron Joint Venture’s motion for summary judgment, or in the

8

alternative partial summary judgment, not to exceed 40 pages. However, the

9

parties are cautioned to use the extra pages to explain thoroughly the issues

10

disclosed in their Joint Application. Upon preliminary review of the filings, if the

11

Court concludes that the parties have incorporated information by reference

12

excessively or failed to explain sufficiently issues or legal arguments, the Court

13

may require re-briefing or take other appropriate action as necessary.

14

The parties are warned that due to this Court’s extraordinary caseload,

15

there may be significant delays in the resolution of civil motions. The longer the

16

motion, the more likely a motion is to experience such delays. In addition, due to

17

the undersigned’s planned retirement at the end of January 2020 and the strong

18

possibility that no replacement district judge will be confirmed in a timely

19

manner, civil trials set before a district judge in the Fresno Division of this

20

District are unlikely to proceed as scheduled and may be continued by many

21

months to accommodate criminal trials, which have statutory priority over civil

22

cases. The parties are strongly encouraged to reconsider magistrate judge

23

consent.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:

27

October 15, 2019

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

28
FINCH, THORNTON &
BAIRD, LLP
4747 Executive
Drive - Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
[phone]

2
1:18-CV-00166-LJO-BAM