Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, Inc. et al

Filing 29

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND RESCHEDULING CASE MANAGMENT CONFERENCE re 28 Stipulation filed by Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company. Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/16/2012. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/23/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/6/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

Download PDF
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 SECOND 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 engaged in negotiations aimed at pragmatic resolution of the coverage issues herein. 1 SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C 11-02438 PJH 13702217.1 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. 5 2. 6 7 Urata’s responsive pleading deadline shall be continued to January 16, 2012. The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for January 5, 2012, shall be 23 continued to February 24, 2012 . SO STIPULATED. 8 9 Dated: December 1, 2011 NIXON PEABODY LLP 10 11 By 12 /s/ Andrew Neilson Attorneys for Plaintiff WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY 13 14 15 16 Dated: December 1, 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 -2SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C 11-02438 PJH 13702217.1 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 For good cause appearing: 3 1. 4 16, 2012. 5 2. Defendant Urata & Sons, Inc.’s responsive pleading deadline is continued to January 6 The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for January 5, 2012, is 23 continued to February 24, 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 6 Dated: December ___, 2011 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O RED 17 yllis J. udge Ph NO 18 RT 19 J ER 21 n Hamilto A H 20 R NIA ORDE ______________________________ T IS SO I Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 16 FO 15 S 14 LI 13 N D IS T IC T R OF C 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 SECOND STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C 11-02438 PJH 13702217.1

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?