Wallis et al v. Centennial Insurance Company Inc et al

Filing 241

ORDER re 234 , 235 , 238 Objections to the Court's 233 Final Pretrial Order, signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/16/2013. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12
13

DALE M. WALLIS, D.V.M., JAMES
L. WALLIS, and HYGIEIA
BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES, INC.,
a California Corporation,

NO. CIV. 2:08-02558 WBS GGH
ORDER

14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17

19

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., a New York corporation,
and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE,
CO., INC., a New York
corporation,

20

Defendants,

18

/
21
22
23

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.
/

24
----oo0oo---25
26

All the parties have filed objections (See Docket Nos.

27

234, 235, 238.) the Final Pretrial Order (“Order”), (Docket No.

28

233), filed in this case on August 7, 2013.
1

1

I.

Defendants’ Objection to the Final Pretrial Order

2

Pursuant to defendants request, the Order is amended

3

such that no later than seven calendar days before the trial

4

date, counsel for each party shall file trial briefs pursuant to

5

Local Rule 16-285.

6

II.

Third-Party Defendant Mendoza’s Objections to the Order

7

Pursuant to defendant Mendoza’s objection, the Order is

8

amended to add as Mendoza’s exhibits those documents listed on

9

pages 14-15 of her Objections and Requests for Modification to

10

the Court’s Final Pretrial Order.

11

15:26 (Docket No. 235).)

12

commencing with the first number not used by plaintiffs.

13

issues raised in defendant Mendoza’s objections that have not

14

been ruled upon in prior orders will be dealt with at the time of

15

trial.

16

III. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Order

17
18

A.

(TPD’s Objections at 14:28-

Mendoza’s exhibits shall bear numbers,
All

Bond
Even if defendants were required to post a bond

19

pursuant to sections 1616 et seq. of the California Insurance

20

Code by virtue of becoming insolvent during this action,

21

plaintiffs’ request, on the eve of trial, is untimely.

22

2012, plaintiffs knew that the court would not stay this case

23

because of defendants’ liquidations.

24

(Docket No. 141).)

25

stay over all claims not subject to arbitration.

26

Plaintiffs have since allowed the case to proceed for over a year

27

without any request for a bond.

By May 1,

(See May 1, 2012 Order

On that same date, the court also lifted the
(Id. at 8:6-9.)

They provide no explanation as

28
2

1

to why they waited until this late date to request a bond.1

2

bond request also remains insufficiently documented.

3

B.

4

The

Default of Atlantic Mutual
Plaintiffs’ request for a hearing before trial on the

5

issue of Atlantic Mutual’s default is also untimely.

Plaintiffs

6

did not raise the issue of Atlantic Mutual’s failure to file a

7

timely answer at the pretrial conference held on August 5, 2013.

8

At that time, the answer was already late.

9

plaintiffs raised the issue in their objections to the Order,

Immediately after

10

Atlantic Mutual filed its answer.

11

for Atlantic Mutual states that the failure to file the answer by

12

August 2, 2013 was a mistake.

13

2).)

14

(See Docket No. 239.)

Counsel

(Evans Decl. ¶ 10 (Docket No. 239-

As it appears that there will be no prejudice to

15

plaintiffs because the answer was eleven days late, the court

16

denies plaintiffs’ request for a hearing on whether default

17

should be entered as to Atlantic Mutual.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

August 16, 2013

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs now object to Atlantic Mutual filing an
answer to the First Amended Complaint without first posting a
bond. They made no such objection when Centennial filed its
answer to the First Amended Complaint on April 18, 2013.
(See Docket No. 218.)
3