Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558-30/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DALE M. WALLIS, D.V.M., JAMES

L. WALLIS, and HYGIEIA

BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES, INC.,

a California Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC., a New York corporation,

and ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE,

CO., INC., a New York

corporation, 

Defendants,

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.

 /

NO. CIV. 08-02558 WBS GGH

ORDER RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION

FOR EXTENSION OF TRIAL DATE,

DISPOSITIVE MOTION CUTOFF,

DISCOVERY COMPLETION, AND

DISCOVERY MOTION DATES

----oo0oo----

On February 28, 2013, the court granted defendant 

Atlantic Mutual’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Feb.

28, 2013 Order (Docket No. 212).) The court allowed plaintiffs

twenty days from the date of the Order to file an amended

1

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 222 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint “consistent with [the] Order.” (Id. at 20 (emphasis

added).) 

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on

March 20, 2013. (Docket No. 214.) Defendants then filed an ex

parte application to extend the trial, dispositive motion cutoff,

discovery completion, and discovery motion dates. (Docket No.

215.) The court struck the FAC and granted plaintiff leave to

amend consistent with its February 28, 2013, and March 29, 2013

orders. (Mar. 29, 2013 Order (Docket No. 216).) It denied

defendants’ ex parte application as moot. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs filed a revised FAC on April 4, 2013. 

(Docket No. 217.) Defendants renewed their ex parte application

to extend the trial, dispositive motion cutoff, discovery

completion, and discovery motion dates. (Document No. 220.) 

Plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Document No. 221.)

The court has reviewed the papers submitted by all

parties, but finds them to be of little assistance. A stranger

to this litigation who read both plaintiffs’ and defendants’

recounting of its history could not be faulted for believing that

she read about two different actions. The level of

contentiousness between these parties will only be exacerbated by

further unnecessary delays. 

However, due to the difficulties arising from Mr.

Baiocchi’s health, the court will extend the date for completion

of discovery of March 15, 2013, by ninety days to June 13, 2013,

for the sole purpose of allowing defendants to depose Mr.

Baiocchi and Ms. Mendoza and resolving any related discovery

disputes that may arise from those depositions. Discovery

2

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 222 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 3
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

otherwise remains closed. Defendants have provided insufficient

reason for the court to extend the trial and dispositive motion

cutoff dates. Thus, in all other respects, defendants’ ex parte

application will be denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 April 29, 2013 DATED:

3

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 222 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 3