Technoglass, S.A. v. Moos Distributing, Inc et al

Filing 52

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 51 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference filed by C.E. Toland & Son. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/26/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 5, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LEONIDOU & ROSIN Professional Corporation Janette G. Leonidou (No. 155257) Roger F. Liu (No. 218345) 777 Cuesta Drive, Suite 200 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 691-2888 jleonidou@alr-law.com rliu@alr-law.com Attorneys for Counter-Defendant/ Counter-Claimant C.E. Toland & Son 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TECNOGLASS, S.A., a Colombian Corporation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, vs. MOOS DISTRIBUTION, INC., dba SADEV USA, a Iowa corporation, WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, LP dba Webcor Builders, a California limited partnership, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire corporation, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION; THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, 22 Defendants. 23 24 MOOS DISTRIBUTION, INC., dba SADEV USA, a Iowa corporation, 25 Counter-claimant, 26 vs. 27 28 C.E. TOLAND & SON, a California corporation, WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 Case No.: C-13-01031 JST STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C:\Users\noblew\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1A03DD\Stipulation to Continue CMC (12-3-13- RFL) (00155088).doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Counter-defendants. ) ) ) ) C.E. TOLAND & SON, a California ) corporation, ) ) Counter-claimant, ) ) ) vs. ) MOOS DISTRIBUTION, INC., dba SADEV ) ) USA, a purported Iowa corporation; MOES 1 ) through 10. ) ) ) Counter-defendants. ) LP dba Webcor Builders, a California limited partnership, TECNOGLASS, S.A. a Colombian Corporation, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire corporation, THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation. 15 RECITALS 16 17 Plaintiff Tecnoglass, S.A. (“Tecnoglass”), Defendant/Counter-Claimant Moos 18 Distributing, Inc. d/b/a Sadev USA (“Sadev”), Counter-Defendant and Counter-Claimant C.E. 19 Toland & Son (“Toland”), Defendants and Counter-Defendants Webcor Construction, LP d/b/a 20 Webcor Builders (“Webcor”), Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Safeco”), Insurance 21 Company of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSP”), and Defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company 22 of Maryland (“Fidelity”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 23 Whereas, the parties completed mediation on November 21, 2013, whereby a conditional 24 settlement of the entire case was reached that is still contingent upon the agreement on and 25 execution of an amenable settlement agreement; 26 Whereas, a further case management conference is set for December 18, 2013, for which 27 the parties have submitted or will be submitting to the court a report regarding, among other 28 issues, the conditional settlement and status thereof; 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C:\Users\noblew\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1A03DD\Stipulation to Continue CMC (12-3-13- RFL) (00155088).doc 1 Whereas, in order to conserve court and attorney resources, the parties agree and 2 stipulate that the case management conference set for December 18, 2013 should be continued so 3 that the parties may prepare, circulate, review, approve and execute an amenable settlement 4 agreement and/or otherwise file dismissals, which would dispense of the need for any case 5 management conference with the Court. 6 7 Accordingly, and based on the foregoing recitals, Tecnoglass, Sadev, Toland, Webcor, Safeco, ICSP, and Fidelity hereby stipulate as follows: STIPULATION 8 9 1. The parties hereby stipulate and agree to continue the case management 10 conference set for December 18, 2013 for sixty (60) days to allow the parties the opportunity to 11 prepare, circulate, review, approve and execute an amenable settlement agreement and/or 12 otherwise file dismissals, which could dispense with the need of any case management 13 conference with the Court. 14 Dated: 12/4/2013 By: /s/ DOUGLAS N. AKAY Attorneys for Counter-Defendant, MOOS DISTRIBUTION, INC., dba SADEV USA Dated: 12/4/2013 By: /s/ KENNETH G. JONES Attorneys for Defendants/Counter-Defendants WEBCOR CONSTRUCTION LP, dba WEBCOR BUILDERS, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND Dated: 12/4/2013 By: /s/ ROGER F. LIU Attorney for Counter-Defendant/CounterClaimant C.E. TOLAND & SON Dated: 12/4/2013 By: /s/ A. SCOTT BROWN Attorney for Plaintiff TECNOGLASS, S.A. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C:\Users\noblew\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1A03DD\Stipulation to Continue CMC (12-3-13- RFL) (00155088).doc ORDER 1 2 The Court, having reviewed and considered the above Stipulation of the parties, and for 3 good cause appearing, hereby orders that the case management conference set for December 18, 4 2013 is hereby vacated and continued sixty (60) days in light of the conditional settlement of the 5 entire case reached by the parties. A further case management conference is to take place on 6 February 26, 2014 to report on the status of the settlement. 7 The parties are reminded that all existing deadlines remain in effect. 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED 11 12 Dated: December 5, 2013 ____________________________________ HON. JON S. TIGAR United States District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C:\Users\noblew\AppData\Local\Temp\notes1A03DD\Stipulation to Continue CMC (12-3-13- RFL) (00155088).doc

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?