Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00125/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00125-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

[PROPOSED] SIXTH AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION

TO DISMISS AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE NO. C-04-0125 JSW (E-FILE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY SHAW-YAU CHANG

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-04-0125 JSW (E-FILE)

[PROPOSED] SIXTH STIPULATED

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

MOTION TO DISMISS AND INITIAL

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Current Hearing Date: May 20, 2005

WHEREAS, Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company (“Twin City”) has

filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the hearing on which is currently

scheduled for hearing on May 20, 2005; and

WHEREAS Magistrate Larson issued an ADR Scheduling Order on January 9,

2004; and

WHEREAS, the Court has scheduled the Initial Case Management Conference for

May 20, 2005; and

WHEREAS, the parties have been engaged in an ongoing mediation before Judge

Daniel Weinstein, ret. and in lengthy further negotiations over the documentation of a

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 45 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 4
2

[PROPOSED] SIXTH AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION

TO DISMISS AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE NO. C-04-0125 JSW (E-FILE)

settlement in principle that has now been funded and, on April 27, 2005, was documented

in signed Stipulations of Settlement and signed Releases; and

WHEREAS, the settlement involves resolution of a proposed class action under the

Federal securities laws that requires court approval, and is further conditioned on issuance

of a court finding that the settlement is in “good faith” and that cross-claims arising out of

the settled litigation are barred; and

WHEREAS, the necessary motions will be filed before Judge Breyer of the U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California, within the next ten days; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid further costs of litigation while awaiting the

outcome of these motions and passage of the applicable deadlines for appeal; and

WHEREAS, the parties therefore wish to continue the hearing on Twin City’s

Motion to Dismiss, and the Initial Case Management Conference, 120 days from May 20,

2005, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may permit; and

Based on the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing on Twin City’s Motion to Dismiss, and the

Initial Case Management Conference, are continued to ________________________.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ opposing and reply papers

respecting Twin City’s Motion to dismiss shall be due 21 and 14 calendar days prior to the

continued hearing, respectively;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the parties’ last day to:

(a) File the Joint ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR process, or Notice

of Need for ADR Phone Conference shall be 21 days before the Initial Case

Management Conference;

(b) Meet and Confer re Initial Disclosures and Rule 26(f) Report shall be 21

days before the Initial Case Management Conference;

(c) Complete Initial Disclosures or State Objections in Rule 26(f) Report and

file and serve Rule 26(f) Report shall be 7 days before the Initial Case

Management Conference; and

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 2 of 4

September 23, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 45 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 4
3

[PROPOSED] SIXTH AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION

TO DISMISS AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE NO. C-04-0125 JSW (E-FILE)

(d) File a Case Management Conference Statement shall be 7 days before the

Initial Case Management Conference.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________________________________

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Court Judge

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 29, 2005 DON A. LESSER & ASSOCIATES

By: ____/s/_______________________________

DON A. LESSER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: April 29, 2005 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

KATHY M. SARRIA

Attorneys for National Union Fire Insurance Co.

Dated: April 29, 2005 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

KATHY M. SARRIA

Attorneys for New Hampshire Company incorrectly

sued as Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London

Dated: April 29, 2005 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

ROBERT A. WOOTEN, JR.

MICHAEL K. JOHNSON

Attorneys for Royal Insurance Company of America

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 3 of 4

April 29, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 45 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 4
4

[PROPOSED] SIXTH AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION

TO DISMISS AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE NO. C-04-0125 JSW (E-FILE)

Dated: April 29, 2005 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

KATHERINE S. CATLOS

Attorneys for St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

Dated: April 29, 2005 DUANE MORRIS LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

STEPHEN SUTRO

Attorneys for Twin City Fire Insurance Company

Dated: April 29, 2005 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

BRUCE D. CELEBREZZE

LAURA GOODMAN

Attorneys for Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London

Dated: April 29, 2005 TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP

By: ____/s/_______________________________

ALEC H. BOYD

Attorneys for TIG Specialty Insurance

Company of Michigan

Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 44 Filed 04/29/2005 Page 4 of 4 Case 3:04-cv-00125-JSW Document 45 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 4