Shared Systems Technnology, Inc. v. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. et al

Filing 26

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Case Management Conference set for 2/12/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/18/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
Eliot S. Jubelirer, CSB #61654
[e-mail]
Rocky N. Unruh, CSB #84049
[e-mail]
One Market
Spear Street Tower, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
415-901-8701
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
E. Mabry Rogers (pro hac vice application to be
submitted)
[e-mail]
D. Bryan Thomas (pro hac vice application to be
submitted)
[e-mail]
One Federal Place
1819 Fifth Ave.
North Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
205-521-8800
Attorneys for Use Plaintiff
SHARED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
(PULLMAN)

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the
use and benefit of SHARED SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY, INC. (PULLMAN), a
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., a
corporation; and ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation,

Case No. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND ORDER
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Complaint Filed: June 20, 2014
Current CMC Date: October 2, 2014

Defendants.

27

Plaintiff, Shared Systems Technology, Inc. (Pullman) (“SST”), and defendant

28

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (“AMEC”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and

S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to (1) a 60-day continuance of the

2

Case Management Conference (“CMC”) (and all dates associated therewith), currently set

3

for December 11, 2014, and (2) an extension of Defendants’ time to respond to the

4

Complaint from November 21, 2014, to and including January 20, 2015.1 The Parties’

5

stipulation is based on the following facts:

6

1.

SST filed a Complaint to Recover on Payment Bond (Miller Act)

7

(“Complaint”) on June 20, 2014. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Elizabeth

8

LaPorte.

9

2.

The action arises out of a federal construction project to stabilize and repair

10

exterior walls of the cellhouse on Alcatraz Island. SST was a sub-subcontractor on the

11

project; AMEC was the general contractor; and Zurich issued the Miller Act payment

12

bond. SST’s contract on the project was with Spectrum Services Group (“Spectrum”).

13

Spectrum is not a party to this case but has brought its own separate action against

14

AMEC.

15

3.

SST commenced this action in June to stop the running of the statute of

16

limitations. However, at the time the action was commenced, the parties planned to

17

participate in a multi-party mediation session before mediator, Randall Wulff of Wulff

18

Quinby Sochynsky. After the mediation session before Mr. Wulff, the Parties negotiated

19

basic terms for a settlement that, when finalized, will result in a dismissal of this action.

20

4.

The settlement negotiated by the Parties is taking additional time to finalize

21

and document because it involves a complex liquidation, sharing and pass-through

22

agreement. The settlement is complex because it involves the Contract Disputes Act, the

23

application of relevant FAR provisions, ongoing litigation between AMEC and Spectrum,

24

and this pending case under the Miller Act. Because the settlement entails a pass-through

25
26
27
28
S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Defendant, Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), has been served with the
Complaint but has not yet entered an appearance given the ongoing settlement
negotiations, in an effort to minimize attorneys’ fees. SST has agreed to extend both
Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint.
-2CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

agreement, the final resolution of SST’s claims in this case is dependent on the resolution

2

of Spectrum’s claims against AMEC as well.

3

5.

The Parties and Spectrum continue to negotiate and exchange support for

4

their claims under the Contract Disputes Act. Currently, SST has submitted all requested

5

supporting documentation for its claims, and the Parties are awaiting final support for one

6

of the claims asserted by Spectrum. The Parties hope to be able to agree on all of the

7

detailed terms and finalize a settlement agreement within the next 30 days.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

6.

All defendants in this case have been served with the Complaint, and there

have been three prior stipulations extending their time to respond. Defendants’ response
is now due on November 21, 2014.
7.

On July 29, 2014, SST filed a declination of assignment to Magistrate

LaPorte, and the case was thereafter assigned to this Court.
8.

On July 31, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice setting the initial CMC in this

Court for October 2, 2014.
9.

On September 8, 2014, this Court entered an Order extending Defendants’

16

time to respond to November 21, 2014 and continuing the Case Management Conference

17

until December 11, 2014.

18

10.

The Parties wish to avoid the time and expense of responding to the

19

Complaint, making initial Rule 26 disclosures, engaging in a Rule 26(f) conference, and

20

preparing for and attending the CMC, while they finalize and document the settlement

21

they have negotiated. This settlement, when finalized and documented, will result in a

22

dismissal of this case.

23

11.

The Parties, therefore, respectfully request that: (1) Defendants’ time to

24

respond to the Complaint be extended to and including January 20, 2015; (2) the CMC be

25

continued for 60 days, until early February, 2015 on a date convenient to the Court; and (3)

26

the dates for filing the Rule 26(f) report, completing initial disclosures, and filing the Joint

27

CMC statement be continued until one week before the new CMC date.

28
S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

-3CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

Dated: November 18, 2014

2

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

3

By:/s/ Rocky N. Unruh
Rocky N. Unruh (SBN 84049)
[e-mail]
One Market, Spear Street Tower, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-901-8701

4
5
6
7

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
E. Mabry Rogers (pro hac vice application to be
submitted)
[e-mail]
D. Bryan Thomas (pro hac vice application to
be submitted)
[e-mail]
One Federal Place
1819 Fifth Ave.
North Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 205-521-8800

8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SHARED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
(PULLMAN)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: November 18, 2014

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
By:/s/ Holly Gaudreau
Holly Gaudreau (SBN 209114)
[e-mail]
Eighth Floor, Two Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-576-0300
Chad V. Theriot (pro hac vice application to be
submitted)
[e-mail]
Elizabeth H. Crabtree (pro hac vice application
to be submitted)
[e-mail]
11000 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 404-815-6555
Attorneys for Defendants
AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
-4CASE NO.

3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

ORDER

2

Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY

3

ORDERED that:

4

1.

5
6
7
8

Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint shall be extended to and

including January 20, 2015;
2.

The Case Management Conference shall be continued from December 11,

2014, until February 12, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.; and
3.

All other deadlines associated with the Case Management Conference,

9

including the filing of the Rule 26(f) report, completing initial disclosures, and filing the

10

Joint Case Management Conference statement, shall be continued until one week before

11

the new CMC date. The Parties shall comply with this Court’s Standing Order re: Initial

12

Case Management and the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of

13

California re: Contents of Joint Case Management Statements.

14
15

Dated: November 18, 2014

16

_____________________________
Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20

44926-0000
SF\321180627.3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

-5CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT