Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05014-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

Case No. 3:14-cv-05014-EMC

Case3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document33 Filed09/17/15 Page1 of 4

1 Karen P. Kimmey (State Bar No. 173284)

kkimmey@fbm.com

2 Richard E. Robinson (State Bar No. 280529)

rrobinson@fbm.com

3 Farella Braun + Martel LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor

4 San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 954-4400

5 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480

6 Brian J. Osias (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

BOsias@McCarter.com

7 McCarter & English, LLP 

Four Gateway Center

8 100 Mulberry Street

Newark, NJ 07102-4056

9 Telephone: (973) 622-444

Facsimile: (973) 624-7070

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 CORTHERA, INC. and

THOMAS G. WIGGANS

12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

16 CORTHERA, INC. and THOMAS G.

WIGGANS,

17

Plaintiffs,

18

vs.

19

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

20

Defendant.

21

22

Case No. 3:14-cv-05014-EMC

APPLICATION TO PERMIT 

ATTENDANCE OF CLIENT 

REPRESENTATIVE BY TELEPHONE AT 

STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER 

23

24

25

26

27

28

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 (415)

954-4400

Further to the Court’s June 4, 2015 Amended Civil Minutes, Dkt. No. 30, directing 

principals to appear in-person for the September 24, 2015 status conference, later rescheduled to 

October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs Corthera, Inc. (“Corthera”) and Thomas G. Wiggans (“Wiggans”) 

respectfully request permission for Corthera’s representative, Lee J. Stoller, Esq., to participate by 

telephone.

APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT 

ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE AT STATUS CONF. - 1 -

30719\5051110.1

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 3:14-cv-05014-EMC

Case3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document33 Filed09/17/15 Page2 of 4

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 (415)

954-4400

Corthera greatly appreciates the Court’s efforts to resolve this matter in a reasonable 

fashion – or, at a minimum, to ensure that the parties are fully apprised of the potential costbenefit in proceeding. Nevertheless, Corthera respectfully seeks relief from the in-person 

appearance requirement noted above for three main reasons: (1) Corthera understands the 

potential costs and risks of proceeding with this case; (2) appearing in-person would present a

substantial hardship to Mr. Stoller and/or another Corthera representative; and (3) the message the 

Court wishes to deliver (and which Corthera takes very seriously) can reasonably be conveyed by 

telephone.

Corthera, by and through sophisticated in-house counsel, including Mr. Stoller, has 

discussed at length with its outside counsel, McCarter English, LLP (“McCarter”) and Farella 

Braun + Martel, LLP (“Farella”), the potential cost of proceeding with the lawsuit, weighed 

against the potential recovery, and the time and distractions inherent in litigation. The parties’ 

mediator, Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.), also capably reiterated those considerations. Corthera 

fully appreciates all of the risks and potential pitfalls, but feels strongly that it has been mistreated 

by Scottsdale. Corthera cannot in good conscience accept the amounts that have been offered or 

signaled by Scottsdale in mediation and settlement discussions to date. From Corthera’s 

perspective, Scottsdale should not obtain a substantial benefit by leveraging the litigation process 

to compel Corthera to accept a grossly inadequate recovery – a practice favoring insurers, 

particularly in situations involving relatively small claims.

That said, Corthera does not wish to present itself to the Court as an ideologue or as 

overly litigious. It is neither. Corthera understands that the amount in question (approximately

$800,000) must be weighed against the costs and risks associated with litigation, including the 

possibility that Corthera will not recover its attorneys’ fees (which, we believe, would be an 

unjust result here). Corthera, for those reasons, advocated early mediation, which Scottsdale 

initially refused. Scottsdale later agreed to mediate, but only if its principal could participate in 

the mediation by telephone, a notion with which the Court expressed disapproval at the initial 

Case Management Conference. When the mediation session ultimately did occur, Scottsdale’s

principal, who was flying in from Arizona, arrived over three hours late on the morning of the

APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT 

ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE AT STATUS CONF. - 2 -

30719\5051110.1

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:14-cv-05014-EMC

Case3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document33 Filed09/17/15 Page3 of 4

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 (415)

954-4400

mediation, postponing the start of the mediation session. In contrast, Corthera’s principal, Mr. 

Stoller, who lives and works in New Jersey, was on-time and physically present; he lost three 

days traveling back and forth from New Jersey to San Francisco. As stated above, Judge Sabraw 

spoke with Mr. Stoller at length concerning the benefits of early resolution coupled with a 

detailed discussion of the issues; presumably, a similar discussion occurred with Scottsdale.

If the Court compels Corthera’s in-person attendance at the upcoming Court status 

conference, Corthera’s principal would again have to travel back and forth from New Jersey to 

participate, which will take the better part of two to three days, depending on flights and 

schedules.

Finally, to the extent the Court has concerns that Corthera’s in-house counsel has not fully 

appreciated the economics of this case or if the Court wishes to provide additional information or 

insight directly to Mr. Stoller, the Court will be able to do so by telephone. Mr. Stoller is willing 

and able to attend on the scheduled date telephonically; however, requiring him to attend in

person is not feasible at this time.

In light of the foregoing, Corthera respectfully requests the Court permit Mr. Stoller to 

appear by telephone at the October 1, 2015 status conference.

Dated: September 17, 2015 FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP

By: /s/ Karen P. Kimmey 

Karen P. Kimmey

Richard E. Robinson

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CORTHERA, INC. and THOMAS G.

WIGGANS

APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT 

ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE AT STATUS CONF. - 3 -

30719\5051110.1

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:14-cv-05014-EMC

Case3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document33 Filed09/17/15 Page4 of 4

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 (415)

954-4400

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of Corthera, Inc. and Thomas G. 

Wiggans to allow Corthera’s in-house counsel to appear telephonically at the October 1, 2015 

status conference is denied. Defendant's request to strike or seal Plaintiffs' Application to Permit 

Attendance of Client Representative by Telephone (Docket No. 34) is denied.

Dated: 9/28/15

Edward M. Chen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPLICATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PERMIT 

ATTENDANCE BY TELEPHONE AT STATUS CONF. - 4 -

30719\5051110.1

Case 3:14-cv-05014-EMC Document 36 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 4