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

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Case Management Conference set for 4/9/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/3/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015)

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for
the use and benefit of SHARED
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
(PULLMAN), a corporation,
Plaintiff,

21
22

v.

23

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., a
corporation; and ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, a
corporation,

24
25
26

Case No. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
Complaint Filed: June 20, 2014
Current CMC Date: February 12, 2015

Defendants.

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

Plaintiff, Shared Systems Technology, Inc. (Pullman) (“SST”), and defendant
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

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

2

through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to (1) an additional 60-day

3

continuance of the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) (and all dates associated

4

therewith), currently set for February 12, 2015, and (2) an additional extension of

5

Defendants’ time to respond to the Complaint from January 20, 2015, to and including

6

March 20, 2015.1 The Parties’ stipulation is based on the following facts:

7

1.

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

8

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

9

LaPorte.

10

2.

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

11

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

12

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

13

bond.

14

3.

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

4.

The settlement negotiated by the Parties has taken additional time to

20

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

21

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

22

Act, the application of relevant FAR provisions, ongoing litigation between AMEC and

23

the subcontractor with which SST contracted, and this pending case under the Miller

24

Act.

25

5.

The Parties and the subcontractor with which SST contracted have

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

continued to negotiate and exchange support for their claims under the Contract

2

Disputes Act. The Parties are awaiting final support for one of the claims asserted by the

3

subcontractor with which SST contracted. The Parties assure the Court that their

4

settlement is still on course, and they expect to finalize a settlement agreement within

5

the next 14 days.

6

6.

All defendants have been served with the Complaint, and there have been

7

three prior stipulations extending their time to respond. Defendants’ response was due

8

on January 20, 2015, but no response was filed because it appeared the settlement would

9

soon be finalized.

10
11
12
13
14

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, Judge Richard Seeborg entered an Order extending

15

Defendants’ time to respond to November 21, 2014 and continuing the CMC until

16

December 11, 2014.

17

10.

On November 18, 2014, Judge Seeborg entered an Order extending

18

Defendants’ time to respond to January 20, 2015 and continuing the CMC until February

19

12, 2015.

20

11.

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

dismissal of this case.

25

12.

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

26

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

27

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

28

the dates for filing the Rule 26(f) report, completing initial disclosures, and filing the
-3CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS

S CHIFF H ARDIN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

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

1

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

2

Dated: February 2, 2015

3

Respectfully submitted,
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

By:/s/ Rocky N. Unruh
Rocky N. Unruh (SBN 84049)
One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower
32nd Floor
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 Plaintiff
SHARED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC.
(PULLMAN)

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

-4CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1
2

Dated: February 2, 2015

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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.

16
17
18
19
20
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

1
2

ORDER
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 March 20, 2015;
2.

The Case Management Conference shall be continued from February 5,
April 9, 2015
2015, until ___________ 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

February 3
Dated: _________________, 2015

16
17

_____________________________
Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

44926-0000
SF\321339340.1

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

-6CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02871-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT