Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01974/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01974-0/pdf.json

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

---

Published March 2000 APPENDIX PG. 2

APPENDIX A - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

IN LIQUIDATION, |

| CASE NO. C-04-1974

Plaintiff(s), | 

| JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

v. | AND PROPOSED ORDER

GREAT NORTHERN STAFFING, INC., |

 et al. |

Defendant(s). |

___________________________________ |

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Case Management Statement and

Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

1. A brief description of the events underlying the action: Plaintiff alleges that it provided workers’

compensation insurance coverage to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, failed

and/or refused to pay premiums due and owing.

2. The principal factual issues which the parties dispute: None that Plaintiff is aware of. Defendants

requested a final re-audit of the policy. Plaintiff’s auditing firm informed Plaintiff that Defendants’ account

was complicated based upon the size of Defendants’ business and for the period in question, Defendants

concurrently held separate workers’ compensation insurance policies with different insurance companies. 

The auditing company recently completed the re-audit and has forwarded the results to the CLO. The CLO

will compute the final premium owing from the re-audit. The parties desire to further stay proceedings

pending outcome of the re-audit and on-going settlement negotiations. The parties request that the Case

Management Conference be continued until October 3, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. 

3. The principal legal issues which the parties dispute: None to date.

4. The other factual issues [e.g. service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or

venue] which remain unresolved for the reason stated below and how the parties propose to resolve those

issues: None to date. 

5. The parties which have not been served and the reasons: None.

6. The additional parties which the below-specified parties intend to join and the intended time

frame for such joinder: Plaintiff - none.

7. The following parties consent to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for

[court or jury] trial: Plaintiff.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

8. [Please indicate the appropriate response(s).]

 The case was automatically assigned to Nonbinding Arbitration at filing and will be ready for the

hearing by (date) November 15, 2005 .

Case 3:04-cv-01974-BZ Document 24 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 2
Published March 2000 APPENDIX PG. 3

t The parties have filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process (specify

process):________________________.

t The parties filed a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference and the phone conference was held on

or is scheduled for __________________.

t The parties have not filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process and the ADR

process that the parties jointly request [or a party separately requests] is

__________________________.

9. Please indicate any other information regarding ADR process or deadline. ADR is stayed with

Court approval pending the results of the re-audit and informal settlement negotiations.

DISCLOSURES

10. The parties certify that they have made the following disclosures [list disclosures of persons,

documents, damage computations and insurance agreements]: Parties have made no disclosures due to stay. 

DISCOVERY

11. The parties agree to the following discovery plan [Describe the plan e.g., any limitation on the

number, duration or subject matter for various kinds of discovery; discovery from experts; deadlines for completing

discovery]: The parties have not agreed upon a joint discovery plan due to the stay. 

TRIAL SCHEDULE

12. The parties request a trial date as follows: The parties request requests the case management

conference be continued for an additional 30 days to permit completion of the on-going re-audit and possible

settlement between the parties. 

13. The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: One day. 

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Bryan D. Sampson

Bryan D. Sampson, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: July 26, 2005 /s/ Vanessa Imberg

Vanessa Imberg, Esq. Attorney for Defendant

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case

Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. In addition the Court

orders:

[The Court may wish to make additional orders, such as: 

a. Referral of the parties to court or private ADR process;

b. Schedule a further Case Management Conference;

c. Schedule the time and content of supplemental disclosures;

d. Specially set motions;

e. Impose limitations on disclosure or discovery;

f. Set time for disclosure of identity, background and opinions of experts;

g. Set deadlines for completing fact and expert discovery;

h. Set time for parties to meet and confer regarding pretrial submissions;

I. Set deadline for hearing motions directed to the merits of the case;

j. Set deadline for submission of pretrial material;

k. Set date and time for pretrial conference;

l. Set a date and time for trial.]

Dated: _______________ ________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01974-BZ Document 24 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 2 of 2

August 1, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

NEW CMC DATE 

IS OCTOBER 3, 

2005, AT 4:00 P.M.