UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 25, 2011
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA AND
TOMOTHERAPY INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFFS,
LEGACY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT AND THIRD- PARTY PLAINTIFF,
UNITED VAN LINES, LLC AND DTI RIGGING,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jeffrey S. White Judge, United States District Court
ROBERTS & KEHAGIARAS LLP ANDREW D. KEHAGIARAS, ESQ. (State Bar No. 207767) 2 firstname.lastname@example.org GEORGE P. HASSAPIS, ESQ. (State Bar No. 147072) 3 email@example.com One World Trade Center, Suite #2350 4 Long Beach, CA 90831 Telephone: (310) 642-9800 5 Facsimile: (310) 868-2923 6 Attorneys for plaintiffs TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA and TOMOTHERAPY INCORPORATED LLP
STIPULATION REGARDING THE FILING AND BRIEFING OF A MOTION TO CLARIFY AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE SUMBISSION OF CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED EHAGIARAS
Pursuant to the stipulation of counsel [Docket #81] and 24 the subsequent order of the Court rescheduling dates 25 Docket#82], on May 20, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs, Travelers 26 Property Casualty Insurance Company of America and Tomotherapy 27 Incorporated appeared before the captioned court for a further status conference. During that conference counsel advised the Court that confusion had arisen between counsel regarding the 2 meaning and effect of earlier orders made by the Court in this 3 action. The Court advised counsel of its willingness to 4 entertain a motion for clarification with regard to its earlier 5 orders. This, in turn, would allow the parties to each more 6 precisely focus their own motion for summary judgment and 7 maximize the chances that the matter would be fully resolved by 8 the intended cross motions for summary judgment and without the 9 need for trial. 10 11
The Court entered an minute order following the Management
Conference ordering the parties to confer and ultimately to prepare and file a stipulation relating to the date for the filing and briefing of a motion for clarification; adjusting
the existing briefing schedule for the filing and briefing of 16 the cross-motions for summary judgment contemplated by the parties; and setting the matter for another Case Management 18
Conference on a date beyond the proposed argument date for the 19 cross-motions. This would allow the Court to take another look 20 at what issues (if any) remained for resolution after the 21 hearing of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and 22 assess what might be the most efficient manner of resolving 23 those remaining issues. 24 25
The parties have met and conferred as ordered and have 26 stipulated to the following (subject to the Court's alteration 27 of the proposed schedule for its own convenience): 28
1. Plaintiffs shall file their opening brief seeking 3 clarification of the meaning and import of the Court's earlier orders on June 10, 2011.
2. Defendant, Legacy, will file its "opposition" brief on 6 June 20, 2011.
3. Plaintiffs will file their reply brief one week later on 8 June 27, 2011.
4. The hearing on the Motion for Clarification (if the oral argument was deemed necessary) would be set for Friday,
July 8, 2011 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 11.
5. For the purpose of the following dates, it is presumed
that the Court's decision/order on the Motion for
Clarification would be issued on or before July 15,
6. The parties' opening briefs on their cross-motions for summary judgment will be filed on August 1, 2011.
7. Briefs in opposition will be due on August 15, 2011. 19
8. Reply briefs will be due on August 22, 2011. 20
9. The cross-motions will be heard on Friday, September 2, 21 2011 or on another date convenient to this Court.
10. The trial date presently on calendar would be maintained; however, alteration of those dates will be considered at the subsequently scheduled Case Management Conference proposed for September 16, 2011.
The parties also believe that the case can be most efficiently resolved through the procedure they have agreed to and herein propose to the Court. The parties have made one 2 prior request for rescheduling, and respectfully request that 3 the Court consider this stipulation to give the parties the 4 best chance of resolving this case without the need for an 5 expensive and time consuming trial. 6 7
*Signed per written authority
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause 4 appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following dates in the 7 captioned matter are scheduled as follows: 8 9
_____June 10, 2011_________ Opening brief/Clarification motion 10 11
_____June 20, 2011_________ Opposition/Clarification motion
_____June 27, 2011_________ Reply Brief/Clarification motion
_July 08, 2011 at 9:00 AM__ Clarification Motion hearing date 16
_____August 01, 2011_______ Opening summary judgment briefs 18
_____August 15, 2011 ______ Opposition Briefs/Summary Judgment 20
_____August 22, 2011_______ Reply Briefs/Summary Judgment 22
_September 02, 2011 at 9:00 AM Motion hearing date 24 25
_September 16, 2011 at 1:30 PM Further status conference 26
shall be set, if necessary, within the order on the motion for summary judgment.
The pretrial and trial dates shall remain unchanged; however, if it appears at the further status conference that the case would benefit from the continuance of the pretrial and trial 2 dates, the Court will consider entering an appropriate order at 3 that time.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.