Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America

June 22, 2010

BERKELEY CEMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA; GRAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., A KENTUCKY CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for June 28, 2010, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on June 14, 2010 ("JSR"), indicates the following Order should issue.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by February 25, 2011. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.*fn1

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(c)(i)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before September 28, 2010, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before October 28, 2010.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be April 18, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.*fn2

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the non-movant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995).

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or

(3) There is an intervening change in controlling law.

A motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence shall set forth, in detail, the reason why said evidence could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.