Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00934/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00934-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNIVERSAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED C. GODINEZ, III, YOGESH 

KUMAR, LINKS INSURANCE 

SERVICES, INC., and NATIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATES, 

INC D/B/A NTA GENERAL 

INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-00934-MCE-AC

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a Motion, brought by Plaintiff Universal Casualty 

Company (“Plaintiff”), that seeks to modify the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order in this 

matter (ECF No. 81). Specifically, Plaintiff asks that the Court extend the time for 

completing discovery for approximately two months on grounds that the defense 

propounded discovery responses, just one month prior to the scheduled completion 

date, that calls for documents and information located outside of Plaintiff’s corporate 

headquarters in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, both in Minnesota and at the offices of various 

third party administrators. According to Plaintiff, the logistical difficulties encountered by 

obtaining that information make an extension necessary.

Case 2:11-cv-00934-FB Document 111 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 2
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

No opposition has been submitted to the Motion, and according to Plaintiff the proposed 

extension will not affect any other deadlines in this matter.

Given the lack of any opposition, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion 

(ECF No. 102) is GRANTED.1 The deadline for completing fact discovery, as set forth in 

the Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, is extended from July 22, 2013 to September 

27, 2013. All other dates and deadlines set forth in said Scheduling Order remain in 

effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2013

 1 Having determined that oral argument was not of material assistance, the Court found this matter 

suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:11-cv-00934-FB Document 111 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2