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)
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?