Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00122-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS NO. 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-GGH

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

and AMERICAN MOTORISTS

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC.,

DAVID L. CAROTHERS, and

TERRI L. CAROTHERS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs have brought this action to recover payments made

in connection with surety bonds issued to Defendant Carothers

Construction Inc. A jury trial was initially scheduled for

September 27, 2006, then continued pursuant to stipulation of the

parties and court order to June 13, 2007. On January 5, 2007,

Plaintiffs applied for an Order for Issuance of Writ of

Attachment against certain assets of the Defendants.

//

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 224 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In the meantime, Plaintiffs also, on February 16, 2007, moved (in

separate motions filed on behalf of both American Motorists and

American Manufacturers) for partial summary judgment. 

Thereafter, on April 2, 2007, while Plaintiffs’ summary

adjudication requests remained pending, Defendants, for their

part, filed a Motion to Continue the June 13, 2007 trial date and

to exclude Plaintiffs’ designation of expert L. Neal Foxhall as

untimely.

On May 22, 2007 the Court, on its own motion and due to its

own unavailability, continued the June 13, 2007 trial date to

August 20, 2007. Subsequently, on August 6, 2007, also because

of its own calendaring restrictions, the August 20, 2007 trial

date was moved to October 22, 2007 where it currently stands.

By Memoranda and Orders dated August 8, 2007 and August 13,

2007, respectively, the Court granted partial summary

adjudication on the liability issues presented by American

Manufacturers’ and American Motorists’ claims. The Court

nonetheless declined to summarily adjudicate the amount of

damages attributable to that liability on grounds that the extent

of that liability remained uncertain due to factual issues.

The attachment requests remain pending before the Court. 

With respect to the initial April 2, 2007 Motion to Continue,

that request was rendered moot by the Court’s own continuances. 

Moreover, and in any event, Plaintiffs have filed a second Motion

to Continue the now set October 22, 2007 due to their own

scheduling concerns; specially, the unavailability of a key

witness and the designated client trial representative,

Stephen J. Beatty. 

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 224 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 California law is determinative in assessing the propriety 1

of attachment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 authorizes

attachment in lawsuits before this Court “in the manner provided

by the law of the state in which the district court is held.” 

3

Given that unavailability, Plaintiffs requested a trial

continuance to December 2007, or as soon thereafter as the

Court’s calendar may accommodate. While defense counsel

initially opposed that request, on September 7, 2007 they

withdrew that opposition due to a trial conflict on their part

and requested a new trial date in January of 2008. Given that

non-opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Continue the October 22, 2007 trial date is GRANTED. 

Trial will now be set for January 23, 2008. By separate order,

new deadlines associated with that new trial date will be

established.

Having established a new trial date, the Court must also

dispose of two remaining matters as outlined above. First, with

respect to Plaintiff’s Applications for Orders of Attachment,

those requests are DENIED. As set forth in the Court’s Orders on

summary judgment, the amount of any damages owed by Defendants to

Plaintiffs remains disputed and in flux due to unresolved factual

issues as to those damages. California Code of Civil Procedure

section 483.010 authorizes attachment only if money claims upon

which attachment requests are predicated are “fixed or readily

ascertainable. Because Plaintiffs’ claims do not meet this 1

standard, their attachment requests are not proper at this

juncture.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 224 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Second, Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the expert of

testimony of L. Neal Foxhall will also be denied. The

Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Joel M. Long, indicates that

on December 16, 2006, the parties agreed to an open extension of

time with respect to further expert disclosure (after Mr. Foxhall

has initially been designated as an expert on November 28, 2006)

pending the outcome of mediation efforts in the related state

court action on January 31, 2007. According to attorney Long,

after those mediation efforts failed, and without any further

request from counsel for the defense, Mr. Foxhall’s expert report

was furnished on or about March 16, 2007. See Long Decl., ¶¶ 19-

21. 

Although defense counsel takes issue in general terms with

whether an open extension on producing Mr. Foxhall’s report was

agreed, he does not dispute either the specific representations

of Mr. Long as to a telephone conversation on that topic, or the

fact that a continuance would have made sense pending efforts to

settle the case by mediation. Moreover, and in any event, there

is no dispute that a full report was provided and that there has

been ample time for Defendants in the meantime to have discovered

the basis for Mr. Foxhall’s opinions given the several trial

continuances that have been extended in this matter as discussed

above. Hence, to the extent Mr. Foxhall’s testimony remains

relevant in the wake of the Court’s liability determination in

favor of Plaintiffs upon summary judgment, his designation as an

expert will not be stricken. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 224 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Because oral argument were deemed to not be of material 2

assistance, the Court ordered these matter submitted on the

briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

5

Plaintiffs are directed to make Mr. Foxhall available for

deposition within the next thirty (30) days, or at such later

time as the parties may agree, should Defendants wish to depose

him in advance of trial.

In sum, then, the currently pending Motions/Applications

before the court are adjudicated as follows:2

1) Plaintiffs’ January 5, 2007 Applications for Writs of

Attachment are DENIED;

2) Plaintiffs’ April 2, 2007 Motion to Continue Trial and to

Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert is moot as to the continuance request

and DENIED to the extent that exclusion of Plaintiff’s Expert L.

Neal Foxhall is sought; 

3) Plaintiffs’ August 10, 2007 Motion to Continue the

October 22, 2007 trial date is GRANTED, with additional deadlines

to be provided by separate Order of this Court in connection with

the new January 23, 2008 date on which trial is now scheduled to

commence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00122-MCE-KJN Document 224 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 5