Olick v. Lily

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 01/18/17 ORDERING that the 02/14/17 trial date is VACATED and RESET for 10/3/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. All deadlines set in the Final Pretrial Order are adjusted based on the new trial date. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

William J. Murray, Esq. (SBN 087936)
Belzer & Murray LLP
3650 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 130
Lafayette, CA 94549
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Vivian Lily
DAVID R. OLICK, No. 72152
Attorney at Law
3450 Sacramento Street, No. 509
San Francisco, CA94118
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for David R. Olick

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
13
14

DAVID R. OLICK,

15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00410-WBS-DAD
Bankruptcy Court Nos.
Chapter 7 No. 12-36999-B-7
Adversary Proceeding
No. 12-02717-B

17
VIVIAN LILY,
18
Defendant.
19
20

JOINT APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
TRIAL BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE
PARTIES

21

Date: Trial Date February 14, 2017
Time: 9:00 a.m.

22

The Honorable William B. Shubb
Department 5

23
24
25
The parties, Plaintiff David Olick (hereinafter, Olick) and Defendant Vivian Lily
26
27
28

(hereinafter, Lily) by and through their respective counsel, jointly apply for a continuance of the
trial of this matter, currently set for February 14, 2017, respectfully request that the trial date be
1
JOINT APPICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

1
2

vacated, and the Court set the matter on calendar for a new trial date anytime subsequent to
September 4, 2017. At the request of Plaintiff, we also respectfully request that trial not be held

3
on September 21-22.
4
The continuance is being sought on two related grounds. First, Lily’s continued serious

5
6

health problems continue to impair her ability to participate in settlement efforts, or should they

7

fail, in trial preparation and trial. Within the last sixty days she has had an angioplasty and been

8

treated for numerous infections. Second, there is a strong possibility that this adversary

9
10

proceeding may well be settled, but such potential settlement is linked to the resolution of other
litigation. A continuance will enable the parties to have an opportunity to pursue active

11
12

settlement discussions, and for the related action to be resolved.
This case is one of two involving Olick and Lily, the second being their dissolution action,

13
14

pending in Solano County, Case No. FFL 114985 (hereinafter, the “Dissolution Case.”) No trial

15

date has been set in that action. There are overlapping issues in these cases and Olick and Lily

16

are interested in reaching a global settlement of both this case and the Dissolution Case. A key

17
18

common issue is the rights of the parties relating to the real property at 846 Leeds Court, Benicia
(hereinafter, the “Subject Property”) , which was acquired during their marriage.

19
There is yet a third case, the outcome of which is significant for both the adversary

20
21

proceeding and the Dissolution Case, in which Lily has sued the Bank of America, seeking to

22

remove an improper second deed of trust and damages. That case, Lily v. Bank of America,

23

Case No. FCS 046863 (hereinafter, the “Bank of America Litigation”) is pending in Solano

24

County Superior Court as well.

25

///

26
///
27
28

///
2
JOINT APPICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

1
2
3

If Lily prevails in the Bank of America Litigation or it is settled, the Subject Property will
have substantial equity. This may facilitate resolution of both the case before this Court and the
Dissolution Action. There are active settlement negotiations between Lily’s counsel in that case

4
5

and counsel for the Bank of America.

6

It is hoped that with additional time the parties can reach an overall settlement of the

7

litigation between them, thereby avoiding the expenditure of judicial resources and the costs

8

associated with trials in two forums. If the parties are unable to reach a negotiated settlement on

9
10

their own, they anticipate asking the Court to refer this matter to a Magistrate Judge for a
settlement conference.

11
The parties respectfully ask that the trial date be vacated, and that the case be set for trial

12
13

any time subsequent to September 4, 2017 and request that trial not be held on September 21-22

14

which is acceptable to both parties and their counsel, with all dates set in the Final Pretrial Order

15

adjusted to the new trial date.

16
17
STIPULATION
18
Lily and Olick stipulate as follows:

19

1.

20

In Order that settlement discussions may be pursued effectively, and that medical

21

problems for Vivian Lily may be addressed, that the trial date of this matter currently set for

22

February 14, 2017, be vacated.

23
24

2.

That the Court set the case for trial after September 4, 2017 on a date convenient to

the Court.

25
26
27
28

///
///
///
3
JOINT APPICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

1
2

3.

That all dates set in the Final Pretrial Order be adjusted to correspond to

the new trial date.

3
4
DATED: January 13, 2017
/s/ David R.Olick (authorized on 1/9/17)
DAVID R. OLICK
Attorney for Plaintiff

5
6
7
8

DATED: January 13, 2017

/s/William Murray
WILLIAM MURRAY
Attorney for Defendant

9
10
11

ORDER:

12

Based on the Stipulation of the Parties, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:

13

1. The trial date in this matter, February 14, 2017, is vacated.

14

2. The case is reset for trial on October 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

15
16

3. All deadlines set in the Final Pretrial Order are adjusted based on the new trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED:

17
18

Dated: January 18, 2017
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT APPICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL BASED ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES