Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01639-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PR FARMS, MOISES MADRIGAL,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1639 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 12/1/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 12/15/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 12/30/08

Settlement Conference Date:

12/9/08 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 3/9/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 4/21/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-4 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

February 21, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP by B. Clyde Hutchinson, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Cooper & Hoppe by Theodore W. Hoppe, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendants. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 9
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. On September 14, 2005, at the intersection of Avenue 7

and the BNSF Railway Company railroad tracks in the County of

Madera, California, a farm tractor pulling a trailer with a water

tank collided with a train owned and operated by National

Railroad Corporation (“Amtrak”). The farm tractor and trailer

was owned by Defendant PR Farms and was operated by PR Farms’

employee, Moises Madrigal.

2. Amtrak claims that the collision was the result of

Defendants’ negligence and seeks $99,820.72 in property damages

to its train and $11,900 for the loss of use of its locomotive,

loss of business and service interruptions.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not presently contemplate amending the

pleadings. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. A collision between a farm tractor and a train

occurred on September 14, 2005. 

2. The collision occurred at the intersection of

Avenue 7 and the BNSF Railway Company railroad tracks in Madera

County, California.

3. PR Farms owns the farm tractor and trailer

involved in the collision.

4. Amtrak owns and operates the train involved in the

collision.

5. BNSF Railway Company owns and maintains the

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 9
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

3

railroad right of way, the railroad tracks and the train

activated warning signals at the involved crossing. 

6. Defendant Moises Madrigal was employed by PR Farms

at the time of the accident and was acting in the course and

scope of his employment when the accident occurred.

7. Madrigal was the driver of the farm tractor at the

time of the collision.

8. National Railroad Passenger Corporation is a

District of Columbia Corporation that does business in the Fresno

Division of the Eastern District of California. 

9. PR Farms is a California corporation doing

business in the Eastern District of California. 

10. Moises Madrigal, at the time of the events at

dispute, was a resident of the Eastern District of California.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Madrigal was negligent.

2. Whether Madrigal’s negligence was a legal cause of

the collision.

3. Whether Amtrak was negligent.

4. Whether Amtrak’s negligence was a legal cause of

the collision.

5. The nature and amount of Amtrak’s damages. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. To the extent that preemption does not make

Federal substantive law applicable, the parties agree that the

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 9
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

substantive law of the State of California provides the rule of

decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. Federal preemption.

2. Whether liability exists under the Federal Highway

Safety Act or other Federal law. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to make their initial

disclosures on or before February 29, 2008. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before September 15, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before October 1, 2008. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before November 3, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or

before December 1, 2008.

5. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before December 15, 2008,

and heard on January 16, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than December 30, 2008, and will be heard on

February 2, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 5 of 9
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

6

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. March 9, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. April 21, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 4 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for December 9, 

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary s.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 6 of 9
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

7

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 7 of 9
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

8

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01639-OWW -GSA Document 18 Filed 02/22/08 Page 9 of 9