IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 4, 2011
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE CO. PLAINTIFF,
SUSANA ISZTOJKA, D/B/A CALIFORNIA GOLD STAR HAULING, DEFENDANT. FRANCESCA EISENBRANDT; CONNIE EISENBRANDT; AND SCOTT EISENBRANDT, INTERVENORS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Timothy M. Burgess United States District Judge
[Re: Post-Verdict Briefing and Motions at Docket Nos. 102 and 107]
In the Order at Docket No. 113 the Court left open the issue of the applicability of Barrera v. State Farm Ins. Co.*fn1 to this case and, if applicable, which provision of California Law applies. Although, in light of the jury's answers to the questions submitted to it, the Court questions whether Barrera applies, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to further brief the issue to the extent that it has not been heretofore briefed. It also appears that all outstanding pretrial motions, to the extent that they have not been heretofore ruled upon, have become moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, on or before March 18, 2011, the parties are to serve and file briefs addressing:
1. The applicability of Barrera to this case;
2. If Barrera applies, which provision of the California Vehicle Code, § 16500.5 or § 36431, controls;
3. Each party may respond to the other party's brief within seven (7) days after the brief is served and filed; and
4. Unless requested by the Court no further reply or response will be permitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff Integon's Violation Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 16(f) and 26(e) at Docket No. 102 and Motion to Strike Erratum to Late Filed Pretrial Statement at Docket No. 107 are DENIED as moot.
Timothy M. Burgess