Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00752/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

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

RONALD J. COOK - 121398

WILLOUGHBY, STUART & BENING, INC.

50 W. San Fernando St., Suite 400

San Jose, California 95113

(408) 289-1972

Facsimile: (408) 295-6375

Attorneys for Defendant

GRETCHEN REDDY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY

INSURANCE COMPANY and

SEDGWICK CLAIMS 

MANAGEMENT SERVICE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GRETCHEN REDDY,

Defendant.

/

No. 2:06-CV-00752-WBS-GGH

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING

TRIAL DATE

Trial Date: August 28, 2007

Judge: William B. Shubb

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to this action that for good cause, the 

court should continue the currently scheduled two day court trial, with a trial date of August 

28, 2007, for a period of not less than six months. 

The ground for this stipulation is the fact the parties are currently engaged in an 

ongoing and complex mediation before Retired California Supreme Court Justice Edward 

A. Panelli. This mediation is specifically referenced as Section IX in the court’s Pretrial 

Order dated April 9, 2007. The mediation involves not only the Declaratory Judgment

Action pending before this court, but also an underlying state court personal injury action

filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court between Dr. Gretchen Reddy, and the driver

Case 2:06-cv-00752-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/01/07 Page 1 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

2

 of the Suburban Ford vehicle insured by Plaintiff Fidelity and Guarantee Insurance 

Company. Dr. Reddy’s demand in the state court case is in the millions of dollars based on 

her alleged total disability and coincident loss of her medical practice. 

The first installment of the mediation was held on July 24, 2007. While significant

progress was made, at end of an all day session, Justice Panelli informed all present that he

felt the parties needed additional time to digest the information exchanged, including

consultation with “home office” personnel. It is anticipated by all concerned that a second

mediation session will be convened by Justice Panelli in the near future either close to, or

after, the currently scheduled trial date. If the mediation is successful, it will either eliminate

the need to submit this Declaratory Judgment Action to trial, or may limit the issues in

dispute. A continuation of the trial date will allow the parties to focus their undivided

attention and financial resources on settlement, as opposed to trial and trial preparation. 

Defendant believes that a separate and independent ground for continuing the trial

date, but one the parties have not stipulated to, concerns Defendant’s counsel having

informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that he intends to seek leave of court to file a counter-claim, or

in the alternative a cross-claim, against the insurance company that issued an excess

insurance policy to Suburban Ford with limits of $10,000,000. Defendant counsel’s review

of the recently obtained excess policy leads him to conclude that the adverse driver in the

underlying state court action is an insured under both Suburban Ford’s primary and excess

insurance policies. Defendant believes that if coverage under the excess policy can be

established in this action, this court will not need to decide if the underlying $15,000 

Case 2:06-cv-00752-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 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

3

insurance policy is “open” due to Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the policy limit by a specific

deadline. Unlike the current action involving only the primary policy, coverage under the

excess policy can be decided by way of motion for summary judgment under stipulated facts

and documents. Defendant believes that unless coverage under the excess policy is decided

in this action, a separate lawsuit involving all of the same underlying parties and facts will

need to be litigated in this court. This would not promote judicial economy. 

If the trial date is continued pursuant to this Stipulated Order, Defendant will file a

motion for leave of court to file a counter-claim, or in the alternative cross-claim that can be

scheduled on Law and Motion Calendar on regular notice. If the court should conclude that

the grounds set forth in this Stipulated Order are not sufficient to continue the trial date,

Defendant will apply ex parte to have a motion to continue the trial date, and a separate

motion for leave of court to file a counter-claim or in the alternative, counter-claim heard on

shortened notice in advance of the current trial date. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 WILLOUGHBY, STUART & BENING

By: ____________/S/___________________

RONALD J. COOK 

Attorneys for defendant GRETCHEN 

REDDY

Dated:JUly 27, 2007 HAYES, DAVIS, BONINO, ELLINGSON, 

 MCLAY & SCOTT

Case 2:06-cv-00752-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 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

4

By:____________/S/___________________

MARK G. BONINO 

Attorneys for plaintiffs FIDELITY AND

GUARANTY INSURANCE

COMPANYand SEDGWICK CLAIMS

MANAGEMENT SERVICE

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, it is hereby ordered that the current trial date of

August 28, 2007 is continued. The new trial date is February 26, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. With

the exception of the new trial date, all other provisions of the court’s April 9, 2007 Pretrial

Order shall continue to apply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-00752-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 4