Integon Preferred Insurance Company vs Isztojka

Filing 141

ORDER signed by District Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 3/4/11 ORDERING parties to serve and file briefs addressing the applicability of Barrera to this case; and if Barrera applies, which provision of the CA Vehicle Code 16500.5 or 36431 controls; each party may respond to the other party's brief within 7 days after the brief is served and filed; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanction 102 and Motion to Strike 107 are DENIED AS MOOT. (Carlos, K)

Integon Preferred Insurance Company vs Isztojka

Doc. 141

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE CO. Plaintiff, vs. SUSANA ISZTOJKA, d/b/a California Gold Star Hauling, Defendant. FRANCESCA EISENBRANDT; CONNIE EISENBRANDT; and SCOTT EISENBRANDT, Intervenors. In the Order at Docket No. 113 the Court left open the issue of the applicability of Barrera v. State Farm Ins. Co.1/ to this case and, if applicable, which provision of California Law applies. Although, in light of the jury's answers to the questions submitted to it, the Court questions whether Barrera applies, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to further brief the issue to the extent that it has not been heretofore briefed. It also appears that all outstanding pretrial motions, to the extent that they have not been heretofore ruled upon, have become moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, on or before March 18, 2011, the parties are to serve and file briefs addressing: 1. 2. The applicability of Barrera to this case; If Barrera applies, which provision of the California Vehicle Code, § 16500.5 or

No. 2:07-cv-00526-TMB ORDER [Re: Post-Verdict Briefing and Motions at Docket Nos. 102 and 107]

§ 36431, controls;

1/

456 P.2d 674 (Cal. 1969)

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

Each party may respond to the other party's brief within seven (7) days after the

brief is served and filed; and 4. Unless requested by the Court no further reply or response will be permitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff Integon's Violation Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 16(f) and 26(e) at Docket No. 102 and Motion to Strike Erratum to Late Filed Pretrial Statement at Docket No. 107 are DENIED as moot. Dated: March 4, 2011 s/ Timothy M. Burgess TIMOTHY M. BURGESS United States District Judge

ORDER [Re: Post-Verdict Briefing and Motions at Docket Nos. 102 and 107]

2