Chartis Specialty Insurance Company et al v. United States of America

Filing 40

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 27 ECF Transfer In - converted docket entry, JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Whittaker Corporation. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/18/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013)

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

WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP
DAVID F. WOOD #68063
[e-mail]
10960 Wilshire Boulevard, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone; [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
SCOTT L. DAVIS TX #05547030
(pending pro hac vice application)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW J. SCHROEDER TX # 00791619
(pending pro hac vice application)
[e-mail]
COLIN G. MARTIN TX # 24013105
(pending pro hac vice application)
[e-mail]
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Chartis Specialty Insurance Company

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20

CHARTIS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation, for itself and as subrogee
of Whittaker Corporation; and
WHITTAKER CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,

21
22

vs.

23

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

24

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-01527 EMC
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
JOINT STIPULATION RE
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

25
26
27
28
601918215v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION
Case No. CV 13-01527 EMC

1

The Court has considered the Parties’ JOINT STIPULATION RE

2

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S

3

MOTION TO DISMISS and, finding good cause, hereby enters the following

4

Order pursuant to Local Rule 7-12:

5

A.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

6

a. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs

7

shall file an Amended Complaint to clarify Chartis Specialty

8

Insurance Company’s (“Chartis”) direct claim under CERCLA

9

section 107 and to add, in the alternative, a claim under CERCLA

10

section 112. Whittaker Corporation (“Whittaker”) shall not

11

amend its claims in the Amended Complaint, except that Chartis

12

and Whittaker shall not include the CERCLA section 113 claims

13

that were previously dismissed without prejudice. The United

14

States’ consent to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall not be

15

construed as an admission that the United States agrees that any

16

of Plaintiffs’ claims or proposed claims are legally valid, and

17

shall not prejudice the United States’ rights to oppose such claims

18

in future proceedings.

19

b. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be filed within five (5) days

20

of the entry of this Order.
c. The United States shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’

22

Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the
S DISTRICT
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
TE
C
TA
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED: April _, 2013
______________________________
DERED
SO OR
I Edward M. Chen
HonorableT IS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RT

28
-2-

ER

H

601918215v1

R NIA

n

M. Che

FO

dward
Judge E

NO

27

LI

26

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION
Case No. CV 13-01527 EMC

A

25

S

24

UNIT
ED

23

RT
U
O

21

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C