Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01953/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01953-0/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

1

 It is unnecessary for counsel to file a separate Notice from the memorandum itself.

The Court's preference and the better practice in this district is that one pleading be filed,

instead of two, titling the subject motion as counsel did without the word "Notice". See, Rule

1, FED.R.CIV.P.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Avnet, Inc.; Avnet EMG AG, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Gulf Insurance Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1953-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the parties' Stipulation To Adjourn The Scheduling

Conference (dkt # 26), filed on January 13, 2006, which the Court treats as a motion to

continue the February 7, 2006 Rule 16(b) scheduling conference and Plaintiffs' Notice1

 And

Motion To Maintain The Action Against Defendant Gulf Insurance Company and

Memorandum (dkt # 27 and # 28), filed January 17, 2006.

The initial motion seeks a continuance of the February 7, 2006 Rule 16(b)

scheduling conference because New York attorney Mark Lerner, one of four lawyers who

are designated on the court's docket as "lead attorney" in this case for Plaintiffs, is out of the

country and unavailable on February 7, 2006 and because the parties are engaged in

Case 2:05-cv-01953-LOA Document 34 Filed 01/23/06 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

 The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”) provides that each United States

district court must develop a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan which facilitates

the deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitors discovery, improves

litigation management, and ensures just, speedy, and inexpensive resolutions of civil

disputes. The CJRA mandates the early and on-going judicial management of the pretrial

process including controlling the extent of and timing for discovery. 28 U.S.C. §473(a)(2).

Under the mandate, "[f]ederal trial courts are now required, by statute, to implement

techniques and strategies designed to dispose of cases in an efficient and inexpensive

manner." See, Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142 F.R.D.

420, 423 (D.Del.1992). 

 Enactment of the CJRA was prompted by the delay and excessive cost attendant to

civil litigation in the federal courts. As noted by the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Chairman

of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the legislative challenge presented by the problems of

delay and excessive cost was "to formulate proposals that would effectively bridge the

growing distance between the promise of (Rule 1)--‘the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action’--and the reality of a system becoming increasingly

inaccessible to the average citizen." Equal, Accessible, Affordable Justice Under Law: The

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., CORNELL JOURNAL OF LAW

AND PUBLIC POLICY, Vol. 1, pg. 1 (1992). See, Scheetz v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,

152 F.R.D. 628, 630 fn. 2 (D. Mont. 1993). The discovery provisions of the Arizona Plan,

like the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "are subject to the

injunction of Rule 1 that they 'be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive

determination of every action.' " Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 1649,

60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979).

- 2 -

settlement negotiations with mediation scheduled sometime in mid-March, 2006. The

motion fails to explain why Mr. Lerner's physical presence in Phoenix is critical in lieu of

one or more of the other three lead attorneys when the parties have been directed to submit

a joint or stipulated plan for the management of this case and a scheduling conference is

usually not an adversarial proceeding. Moreover, if Mr. Lerner's presence is so critical at the

scheduling conference itself, the motion offers no reason why he could not appear

telephonically. Additionally, settlement negotiations alone do not constitute "good cause"

under Rule 16 to continue a scheduling conference especially in a case, like this one, that was

filed nearly seven months ago and where the docket reflects that little, if anything, has been

done to prosecute this case to a reasonably expeditious conclusion consistent with the Civil

Justice Reform Act.2

 See, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq. 

Case 2:05-cv-01953-LOA Document 34 Filed 01/23/06 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

 Counsel should informally confer amongst themselves, agree on other dates in

February, 2006 and thereafter communicate by telephone with the Court's Judicial Assistant,

Vickie, to determine a date convenient for the Court and all concerned. Thereafter, counsel

shall file a stipulation to reset the scheduling conference to the agreed-upon date given by

Court's Judicial Assistant. Out-of-district counsel may appear telephonically at the Rule 16

conference so long as local counsel are physically present.

- 3 -

The initial motion also seeks to reset the scheduling conference to sometime in

April, 2006. The Court commends the parties for considering less expensive, voluntary

mediation to resolve this matter. Further delays, however, in formulating a plan and setting

the various deadlines to resolve this case within a 3-year time frame is not acceptable. While

the Court would likely be agreeable to a modest continuance of the scheduling conference

to accommodate Mr. Lerner's travel schedule and the parties' Rule 26(f) plan may reasonably

take into consideration early mediation, resetting the scheduling conference to April, 2006

won't work. The subject motion will be denied without prejudice.3

In Plaintiffs' Motion To Maintain The Action Against Defendant Gulf Insurance

Company ("Gulf"), Plaintiffs' seek assurance the Defendant Gulf's appearance in this

litigation without formal service of process will not result in the dismissal of Gulf either by

sua sponte order or otherwise. The Court has reviewed Gulf's Notice of No Objection that

it has no objection to Plaintiffs' Motion. The Motion will be granted.

The Court also notes that the form of the two motions do not meet the form

required by the Local Rules for pleadings filed in this District Court. Specifically, the

caption and capitalization are not in compliance. All counsel will be directed to read and

comply with the Local Rules and out-of-district counsel shall do so to maintain their pro hac

vice status in this litigation.

Good cause not appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Stipulation To Adjourn The Scheduling

Conference (dkt # 26) which the Court deems a motion to continue the February 7, 2006 Rule

16(b) scheduling conference is DENIED without prejudice. This Court's December 21, 2005

Order (dkt # 20) is hereby affirmed in all respects.

Case 2:05-cv-01953-LOA Document 34 Filed 01/23/06 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 -

There being no objection and good cause appearing,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Notice And Motion To Maintain

The Action Against Defendant Gulf Insurance Company and Memorandum (dkt # 27 and #

28) is GRANTED. No further service of process is required of Defendant Gulf Insurance

Company in this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall hereinafter comply with the

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local

Rules"), as amended on December 1, 2004. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found

on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be

found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01953-LOA Document 34 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4