Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, Inc. et al
Filing
27
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 26 Stipulation, filed by Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company. Joint Case Management Statement due by 12/29/2011. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/5/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/10/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)
1
2
3
4
Donald E. Dorfman (SBN 63725)
Andrew R. Neilson (SBN 221694)
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8200
Facsimile: (415) 984-8300
5
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
OAKLAND DIVISION
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. C 11-02438 PJH
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
CONTINUING RESPONSIVE PLEADING
DEADLINE AND RESCHEDULING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
vs.
URATA & SONS CEMENT, INC. and
BOSA DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA II,
INC.
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION
This is an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance
Company (“Westchester”) seeks a judicial declaration regarding its duties and obligations arising
from an underlying action known as Liburd v. Bosa Development, Inc. et al., San Francisco Superior
Court, Case No. CGC-09-491615 (the “Underlying Action”). Westchester, together with Defendant
Urata & Sons Cement, Inc. (“Urata.” Collectively, the “Parties”) are presently negotiating issues in
the Underlying Action which could materially affect the coverage questions herein.
1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
C 11-02438 PJH
13669429.1
1
2
The Parties believe that it would promote efficiency and conservation of the Court’s and the
Parties’ resources to continue pretrial deadlines while the Parties continue to negotiate.
3
THEREFORE, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree:
4
1.
Urata’s responsive pleading deadline shall be continued to December 1, 2011.
5
2.
The Case Management Conference current scheduled for November 17, 2011, shall be
6
7
continued to January 5, 2012.
SO STIPULATED.
8
9
Dated: November 7, 2011
NIXON PEABODY LLP
10
11
By
12
/s/ Andrew Neilson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY
13
14
15
16
Dated: November 7, 2011
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT LLP
17
By
18
/s/ Andrew Sclar
Attorneys for Defendant
URATA & SONS CEMENT, INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
C 11-02438 PJH
13669429.1
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
For good cause appearing:
3
1.
4
5
Defendant Urata & Sons, Inc.’s responsive pleading deadline is continued to
December 1, 2011.
2.
The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for November 17, 2011, is
6
continued to January 5, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay
7
Street, Oakland, California. The parties shall meet and confer as required by FRCP 26(f) with respect
8
to those subjects set forth in FRCP 16(c). Not less than seven days before the conference, counsel
9
shall file a joint case management statement addressing each of the items listed in the “Standing
10
Order For All Judges of the Northern District – Contents of Joint Case Management statement.” Any
11
request to reschedule the date of the conference shall be made in writing, and by stipulation if
12
possible, at least ten days before the date of the conference and must be based on good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
10
Dated: November ___, 2011
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
ED
RT
19
hylli
Judge P
ER
H
20
ilton
s J. Ham
NO
18
FO
17
R NIA
RDER
______________________________
IS SO O
IT
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
16
LI
15
S
14
A
13
N
21
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
C 11-02438 PJH
13669429.1
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?